Counter Currents has posted a shortened version of Indian novelist Arundhati Roy’s commemorative lecture on Hrant Dink’s assassination presented at a Turkish university last Friday:

I never met Hrant Dink, a misfortune that will be mine for time to come. From what I know of him, of what he wrote, what he said and did, how he lived his life, I know that had I been here in Istanbul a year ago I would have been among the one hundred thousand people who walked with his coffin in dead silence through the wintry streets of this city, with banners saying, “We are all Armenians”, “We are all Hrant Dink”. Perhaps I’d have carried the one that said, “One and a half million plus one”.* [*One-and-a-half million is the number of Armenians who were systematically murdered by the Ottoman Empire in the genocide in Anatolia in the spring of 1915. The Armenians, the largest Christian minority living under Islamic Turkic rule in the area, had lived in Anatolia for more than 2,500 years.]

***
In a way, my battle is like yours. But while in Turkey there’s silence, in India, there is celebration.
***

I wonder what thoughts would have gone through my head as I walked beside his coffin. Maybe I would have heard a reprise of the voice of Araxie Barsamian, mother of my friend David Barsamian, telling the story of what happened to her and her family. She was ten years old in 1915. She remembered the swarms of grasshoppers that arrived in her village, Dubne, which was north of the historic city Dikranagert, now Diyarbakir. The village elders were alarmed, she said, because they knew in their bones that the grasshoppers were a bad omen. They were right;
the end came in a few months, when the wheat in the fields was ready for harvesting.

“When we left…(we were) 25 in the family,” Araxie Barsamian says. “They took all the men folks. They asked my father, ‘Where is your ammunition?’ He says, ‘I sold it.’ So they says, ‘Go get it.’ So he went to the Kurd town to get it, they beat him and took all his clothes. When he came back there-this my mother tells me story-when he came back there, naked body, he went in the jail, they cut his arms…so he die in jail.

And they took all the mens in the field, they tied their hands, and they shooted, killed every one of them.”

Araxie and the other women in her family were deported. All of them perished except Araxie. She was the lone survivor.

This is, of course, a single testimony that comes from a history that is denied by the Turkish government, and many Turks as well.

I am not here to play the global intellectual, to lecture you, or to fill the silence in this country that surrounds the memory (or the forgetting) of the events that took place in Anatolia in 1915. That is what Hrant Dink tried to do, and paid for with his life.

***
Most genocidal killing from the 15th century onwards has been part of Europe’s search for lebensraum.
***

The day I arrived in Istanbul, I walked the streets for many hours, and as I looked around, envying the people of Istanbul their beautiful, mysterious, thrilling city, a friend pointed out to me young boys in white caps who seemed to have suddenly appeared like a rash in the city. He explained that they were expressing their solidarity with the child-assassin who was wearing a white cap when he killed Hrant.

The battle with the cap-wearers of Istanbul, of Turkey, is not my battle, it’s yours. I have my own battles to fight against other kinds of cap-wearers and torchbearers in my country. In a way, the battles are not all that different. There is one crucial difference, though. While in Turkey there is silence, in India there’s celebration, and I really don’t know which is worse.

In the state of Gujarat, there was a genocide against the Muslim community in 2002.

I use the word Genocide advisedly, and in keeping with its definition contained in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The genocide began as collective punishment for an unsolved crime-the burning of a railway coach in which 53 Hindu pilgrims were burned to death. In a carefully planned orgy of supposed retaliation, 2,000 Muslims were slaughtered in broad daylight by squads of armed killers, organised by fascist militias, and backed by the Gujarat government and the administration of the day. Muslim women were gang-raped and burned alive.

Muslim shops, Muslim businesses and Muslim shrines and mosques were systematically destroyed. Some 1,50,000 people were driven from their homes.

Even today, many of them live in ghettos-some built on garbage heaps-with no water supply, no drainage, no streetlights, no healthcare. They live as second-class citizens, boycotted socially and economically. Meanwhile, the killers, police as well as civilian, have been embraced, rewarded, promoted. This state of affairs is now considered ‘normal’. To seal the ‘normality’, in 2004, both Ratan Tata and Mukesh Ambani, India’s leading industrialists, publicly pronounced Gujarat a dream destination for finance capital.

[…]

It’s not a coincidence that the political party that carried out the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire, was called the Committee for Union & Progress.

‘Union’ (racial/ethnic/religious/national) and ‘Progress’ (economic determinism) have long been the twin coordinates of genocide.

Armed with this reading of history, is it reasonable to worry about whether a country that is poised on the threshold of “progress” is also poised on the threshold of genocide? Could the India being celebrated all over the world as a miracle of progress and democracy, possibly be poised on the verge of committing genocide? The mere suggestion might sound outlandish and, at this point of time, the use of the word genocide surely unwarranted. However, if we look to the future, and if the Tsars of Development believe in their own publicity, if they believe that There Is No Alternative to their chosen model for Progress, then they will inevitably have to kill, and kill in large numbers, in order to get their way.

[…]

“Within an ongoing counterfeit universe,” Robert Jay Lifton says, “genocide becomes easy, almost natural.”

The poor, the so-called poor, have only one choice: to resist or to succumb. Bachchan is right: they are crossing over, quietly, while the world’s not looking. Not to where he thinks, but across another ravine, to another side. The side of armed struggle. From there they look back at the Tsars of Development and mimic their regretful slogan: ‘There Is No Alternative.’

They have watched the great Gandhian people’s movements being reduced and humiliated, floundering in the quagmire of court cases, hunger strikes and counter-hunger strikes. Perhaps these many million Constraining Ghosts of the Past wonder what advice Gandhi would have given the Indians of the Americas, the slaves of Africa, the Tasmanians, the Herero, the Hottentots, the Armenians, the Jews of Germany, the Muslims of Gujarat. Perhaps they wonder how they can go on hunger strike when they’re already starving. How they can boycott foreign goods when they have no money to buy any goods. How they can refuse to pay taxes when they have no earnings.

Stamp out the Naxals: They have no place in Shining India

People who have taken to arms have done so with full knowledge of what the consequences of that decision will be. They have done so knowing that they are on their own. They know that the new laws of the land criminalise the poor and conflate resistance with terrorism. (Peaceful activists are ogws-overground workers.) They know that appeals to conscience, liberal morality and sympathetic press coverage will not help them now. They know no international marches, no globalised dissent, no famous writers will be around when the bullets fly.

Hundreds of thousands have broken faith with the institutions of India’s democracy. Large swathes of the country have fallen out of the government’s control. (At last count, it was supposed to be 25 per cent). The battle stinks of death, it’s by no means pretty. How can it be when the helmsman of the army of Constraining Ghosts is the ghost of Chairman Mao himself? (The ray of hope is that many of the footsoldiers don’t know who he is. Or what he did. More Genocide Denial? Maybe). Are they Idealists fighting for a Better World? Well… anything is better than annihilation.

The Prime Minister has declared that the Maoist resistance is the “single largest internal security threat”. There have even been appeals to call out the army. The media is agog with breathless condemnation.

Here’s a typical newspaper report. Nothing out of the ordinary. Stamp out the Naxals, it is called.

This government is at last showing some sense in tackling Naxalism. Less than a month ago, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asked state governments to “choke” Naxal infrastructure and “cripple” their activities through a dedicated force to eliminate the “virus”. It signalled a realisation that Naxalism must be stamped out through enforcement of law, rather than wasteful expense on development.

“Choke”. “Cripple”. “Virus”. “Infested”. “Eliminate”. “Stamp Out”.

Yes. The idea of extermination is in the air. And people believe that faced with extermination, they have the right to fight back. By any means necessary.

Perhaps they’ve been listening to the grasshoppers.

As Turkey is considering to amend Article 301 of its penal code – that has been used to prosecute those who bring up the subject of the Armenian Genocide – Turkey’s Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that individual citizens can bring civil actions against their countrymen who bring up the topic of the Genocide.

Today’s Zaman, a relatively moderate newspaper from Turkey, reports that Turkey’s Supreme Court of Appeals has “opened the way” for Turkish individuals to bring civil actions against their country’s best-known novelist and Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk for having talked about the Armenian Genocide.

The Supreme Court of Appeals yesterday nullified a local court ruling that dropped a civil suit against Nobel Prize-winning novelist Orhan Pamuk for his controversial remarks about Armenian allegations of genocide that were published in a Swiss magazine in 2005.

A civil suit had been filed by a group of five people, including relatives of martyrs who claimed that Pamuk put the blame for atrocities committed against Armenians during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire on the entire Turkish nation with his remarks. During an interview to Swiss Das magazine Pamuk had said: “We killed 30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians in these lands. Nobody but me dares to say this in Turkey,” in remarks that drew ire from the Turkish public — particularly from nationalist circles.

İstanbul’s Şişli Third Civil Court of First Instance dropped the case in a 2006 ruling on the grounds that there had been no violation of the individual rights of the plaintiffs in Pamuk’s remarks. The plaintiffs appealed the court decision.

[…]

The court ruling has opened the way for thousands of families of martyrs to file cases against Pamuk. The lawyer of the plaintiffs, Kemal Kerinçsiz, who is a well-known ultranationalist, said earlier that all the families of martyrs would file cases against Pamuk and take away his Nobel Prize money if the Supreme Court of Appeals nullified the local court ruling.

Via an ANCA e-mail from BarackObama.com:  

Barack Obama on the Importance of US-Armenia Relations

| January 19, 2008

I am proud of my strong record on issues of concern to the one and a half million Americans of Armenian heritage in the United States. I warmly welcome the support of this vibrant and politically active community as we change how our government works here at home, and restore American leadership abroad.

I am a strong supporter of a U.S.-Armenian relationship that advances our common security and strengthens Armenian democracy. As President, I will maintain our assistance to Armenia, which has been a reliable partner in the fight against terrorism and extremism. I will promote Armenian security by seeking an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, and by working for a lasting and durable settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict that is agreeable to all parties, and based upon America’s founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination. And my Administration will help foster Armenia’s growth and development through expanded trade and targeted aid, and by strengthening the commercial, political, military, developmental, and cultural relationships between the U.S. and Armenian governments.

I also share with Armenian Americans – so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors – a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey’s acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term “genocide” to describe Turkey’s slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Genocide, sadly, persists to this day, and threatens our common security and common humanity. Tragically, we are witnessing in Sudan many of the same brutal tactics – displacement, starvation, and mass slaughter – that were used by the Ottoman authorities against defenseless Armenians back in 1915. I have visited Darfurian refugee camps, pushed for the deployment of a robust multinational force for Darfur, and urged divestment from companies doing business in Sudan. America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.

I look forward, as President, to continuing my active engagement with Armenian American leaders on the full range of issues of concern to the Armenian American community. Together, we will build, in new and exciting ways, upon the enduring ties and shared values that have bound together the American and Armenian peoples for more than a century.

I just noticed that the website of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute has finally been updated with a somewhat professional design on January 19, 2008.

The website has also posted a previously unpublished interview with Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink who was assassinated exactly a year ago in Istanbul. Talking about the circumstances that led to the establishment of Agos, the Armenian newspaper that Dink edited, he said:

The word Armenian was considered to be an abuse; the Turks connected the Armenians with the Kurdish Worker Party (PKK) or with ASALA (the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia). There was a great anxiety and trouble in the community when the Karabagh problem was discussed in Turkey.
We lived like a worm. We heard what was on TV but could do nothing. We apposed, cried, told that all these were lie but could not speak loudly. We need to break the wall, it was necessary.

One day the Patriarch Ghazanchyan invited us and told that there was a photo of an Armenian priest and [Pkk leader] Abdullah Odjalan in the “Sabah” newspaper and there was written under the photo “Here is the fact of Armenian and PKK collaboration”.

Then His Holiness stated that it was a lie, the priest was not an Armenian. He asked me and my friends who were with me at that time what we thought about all that. I expressed my point of view and suggested that it’ll be meaningful if we invite a press- conference. It was a brave action, all the local and international press came and it was a great success. The impression was indescribable.

After the meeting I suggested that it was nonsense to invite a conference on every occasion, we had to take definite steps. And I suggested publishing a newspaper.

Talking about minorities in Turkey, Dink said:

You will not find anything connected with minorities especially the Armenians in any textbooks. There are facts on minorities only in the textbook of the National Security. In the elementary school there is not even a sentence like “Ali gives the ball to Hakob”; Ali will always give it to Veli. When we observe them we are nowhere.
Only in the textbooks of National Security you may find the word “Armenians” which will take place in the unit of unprofitable groups which play bad tricks with Turkey.

Azerbaijan’s authoritarian president Ilham Aliyev’s recent statement that neighboring Armenia can’t give anything to the world “from the political, economic, transport or cultural points of view” has attracted little attention.

That’s because there is nothing new in a racist statement coming from official Azerbaijan that says Armenia has no cultural contributions to the world. In fact, Aliyev’s regime has done everything possible to prove that point: in December of 2005, the largest Armenian archaeological site in the world – the medieval cemetery of Djulfa – was reduced to dust by a contingent of Azerbaijan’s army. President Aliyev says the destruction never happened because there had never been any Armenia cultural monument in Djulfa in the first place.

And although the deliberate demolition of Djulfa has not attracted much concern from the international community – some suggest the oil factor – there is now a growing concern about Azerbaijan’s ambitions of “uniting Turkic countries” which is usually followed by statements against Armenia and primarily seeks a common identity with the Republic of Turkey.

Mathew Bryza, the Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, has said at a recent conference that “[t]he slogan ‘one nation, two states’ reigning in Turkey and Azerbaijan should be changed. “ Although Bryza’s statement at face is a reference to stopping the common hate toward Armenia it comes amid apparent concerns for growing Pan-Turkism in Eurasia and so creation of a “racial” and possibly Islamic unity.

A recent article in the Eurasia Daily Monitor, titled “The Rebirth of Pan-Turkism?” states:

As the USSR recedes further into history, the post-Soviet Turkic nations of the Caucasus and Central Asia are rediscovering their linguistic and cultural affinities with Turkey, and activists are promoting closer cultural, economic, and political ties.

Among the states of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan, the pan-Turkic sentiment is most pronounced in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s most ardent support of closer Turkic ties is Nizami Jafarov, director of Baku’s Ataturk Center, a corresponding member of Azerbaijan’s Academy of Science, and head of the Azerbaijani Permanent Parliamentary Commission on the Culture of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Jafarov’s latest project is setting up a new Turkish language TV channel in Azerbaijan to broadcast to the Turkish-speaking world and foster further integration in the Turkic world. “It is possible to say that this idea has become a reality,” Jafarov said during a recent interview. “The issues of the opportunities, main topics, and language of this TV channel have been defined after long discussions. No one is against the creation of such a channel.” According to Jafarov, the only thing currently lacking is money. “ The issue will be fully elaborated after one of the Turkic countries or any international company undertakes the financing of the TV channel,” but he added optimistically, “I think the issue of the channel opening will be settled this year.”

The concern for Pan-Turkism is not the cultural integration of countries with somewhat closer heritage but old ambitions for a Pan-Turkic “empire” that some scholars believe was the ideology behind eliminating the Armenian people from the Ottoman Empire. 

Jafarov is also chairman of the Turkish-Azerbaijani Parliamentary Friendship Group, which has been promoting the idea of closer Turkish-Azeri relations for some time. In 2006 Jafarov maintained, the idea of a Parliamentary Assembly of Turkish States began to gain serious traction, commenting, “Azerbaijan’s suggestion of establishing a Parliamentary Assembly of Turkish States has been approved by all. The format of the Assembly is to be discussed. Creation of this assembly is inevitable. The ongoing processes in the world make it necessary to set up an organization of Turkish states at least on parliament level” (Today.az, February 28, 2006). As envisaged, the Turkish States’ Parliamentary Assembly would consist of delegates from Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan.

Although the article fails to directly mention the “role” of Armenia in the Pan-Turkic ambition – that is Armenia would need to be physically annihilated because it is the only country that geographically seperates the Turkic nations –  it does reference the anti-Armenian rhetoric of the Pan-Turkic agenda:

An important element of Jafarov’s plan was Armenia’s reaction to such an assembly. The following month Jafarov said, “The Armenian media writes that Turk nations will create a Turanian State and claims that and this state will be against Armenians… The establishment of such an assembly is important for the maintenance of harmony in the world and is not in contradiction with the norms and principles of international law. On the other hand, Armenians are far fewer in number than Turks. There are 100 million Turks in the world and only about 10 million Armenians. Despite this we will discuss the ‘Armenian issue’ after the formation of the Assembly.”

Azerbaijan’s successful destruction of Armenian cultural heritage and an unprecended hate campaign – partially because of losing a recent war to Armenia – toward the people who, even after the Armenian Genocide – stand on the way of Pan-Turkism – has led to convinctions on the part of Azerbaijan’s officials that they should become the leader of the Turkic world:

But the concept has already brushed up against political reality, with both Turkey and Azerbaijan claiming credit for the concept and eventual leadership of the organization. For the Azeris, the recent Congress solidified Azerbaijan’s leadership. According to Nazim Ibrahimov, head of the State Committee on Work with Azerbaijanis Living Abroad, “This congress, which was held on the initiative of President Ilham Aliyev, brought new tone to the Turkish world. In the worldwide Turkish diaspora all Turks are speaking about the congress in Baku. They consider the Azerbaijani President as a new leader of Turkish world” (APA, December 30).

While Azerbaijan’s immense oil wealth gives it a rising presence in the Turkic world, it remains to be seen if that will translate into substantial political power in the Inter-Parliamentary Council and Advisory Council, proposed by Turkey, and whether the heads of the five former Soviet Turkic states will, in fact, be ready to surrender any national sovereignty to such a body. If Azerbaijan and Turkey cannot even agree regarding who provided the impetus for the idea, further integration of the Turkish-speaking world still seems a distant goal.

Armenia’s good relationship with some of the Central Asian “Turkic” countries may also be a factor to the thwart of the political aspect of the Pan-Turkist ambition. Armenian culture is widely spread in many of these former Soviet Union countries and most would disagree with Aliyev’s racist statement that Armenia culturally offers nothing to the world.  Moreover, Armenians and Azeris are genetically more related than Azeris and their “Turkic brothers” in Central Asia so hopes for Pan-Turkist racial unity are embedded in myths and prejudice.

Nonetheless, Azerbaijan’s ambitions for greater rule and influence are alarming, as the State Department has finally noticed, even if no one – including Turkey – refuse to participate in the Pan-Turkist agenda.  Azerbaijan’s militarization needs to be put to an end. And that must start with activating Section 907 of the Freedom of Support Act.

“The Armenian Problem is solved,” a statement attributed to Ottoman Turkey’s most powerful leader during World War I, is the title of a new Turkish book – released this week – written by a pioneer historian who has been openly writing about the Armenian Genocide.  As of now, the book has received no reviews in the Turkish media.

According to a Turkish website, historian Taner Akcam’s new book on the Armenian Genocide  – a taboo subject in Turkey – is based on documents available in the Ottoman archives.  One of these documents is a telegraph by Talaat Pasha, the architect of the Armenian Genocide, where the bloody leader states “Ermeni meselesi hallolunmuştur” meaning “The Armenian problem is solved.”

Taner Akcam, a native of Turkey who currently teaches at the University of Minnesota, recently told a Minnesota publication that his upcoming book would demonstrate “[t]he genocidal intent… based only on Ottoman documents.”

Image: Taner Akcam

And before the book even came out, several ultra-nationalist Turks commented angrily on our December 20, 2007 post linking to the interview with Minnesota Law & Politics.  The comments came after letters were circulated in nationalist Turkish groups, one of them available here, informing of our post and discussing strategies on how to react against Akcam’s upcoming book.

In addition to the regular accusations of “treason and terrorism,” some ultra-nationalist Turks even added reviews of the upcoming book without knowing the title:

Iclal Atay, for instance, (who is the Chief of Bureaue of Release Prevention of Radiaton Protection Programs with the New Jersey state government) commented that “This fictional book is absurd:”

This book is nothing but fiction. Someone who does not use all the historical original factual documents cannot call themselves a historian. It is obvious that Mr. Akcam wrote this book to perpetuate the lies of some Armenians distorting the facts that are: ” the Armenian-Ottoman citizens of the Ottoman empire committed treason, and fought against their own country, and committed unspeakable acts which led to their relocation.” Their treason caused the death of many Ottoman citizens Armenian and non-Armenian alike. Even without investigating the historical documents, the mere knowledge that during the referenced time frame the Ottomans were involved in World War I at all of their borders, anyone with common sense can figure out that they could not afford to start an internal conflict with their own citizens.

What’s troubling about Dr. Atay’s post is not his stupidity of calling an academic book “fiction” before reading it but the fact that he is using taxpayer money of the people of New Jersey – state equipment and state salary – to engage in online ultra-nationalist Turkish campaigns.  The IP address Dr. Atay left his comment from, according to ARIN WHOIS Database, is  that of New Jersey’s Department of Transportation:  

OrgName:    New Jersey Department of Transportation
OrgID:      NJDT
Address:    1 Schwartzkopf Drive
City:       West Trenton
StateProv:  NJ
PostalCode: 08625-0113
Country:    US

NetRange:   160.93.0.0 – 160.93.255.255
CIDR:       160.93.0.0/16
NetName:    NJDOT
NetHandle:  NET-160-93-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-160-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.STATE.NJ.US
NameServer: NS2.STATE.NJ.US
Comment:   
RegDate:    1992-05-01
Updated:    2001-10-23

RTechHandle: SJO1-ARIN
RTechName:   Orzol, Stephan, J.
RTechPhone:  +1-609-530-6552
RTechEmail:  [email protected]

Now how Dr. Atay is going to deny that he has used taxpayer money of New Jersey residents to engage in online Turkish campaigns is his business, but my business is not to accuse all Turks of denial.

In fact, there was one Turkish user who left a comment asking his compatriots to stop the hatred:

Dogru Yol on 31 Dec 2007 at 11:04 pm #

My fellow Turks,

Do you not realize that the pure aggressiveness of your hatred as witnessed in the above comments is itself offering additional support that we Turks can and did murder up to if not more than a 1 million Christians ?

We must stop acting dishonorably with historical facts. Stop being the dupes of state propaganda. Research the facts, hold your political leaders accountable (if you are able).

It’s time for us and our government to do the right thing : to acknowledge the truth. Anything else is “sherefsizlik” my friends.

Saygilarimi sunarim,
DY

And although Turks like Dogru Yol are not too many, it is encouraging that Taner Akcam’s entire book was worked on by Turkish individuals like Kerem Ünüvar, Remzi Abbas, Suat Aysu, Ümit Kıvanç, Hüsnü Abbas, Şahin Eyilmez, Hasan Deniz, Mat Yapım and Sena Ofset.

The English version of “The Armenian Problem is Solved,” our sources say, won’t be coming out for another year or so.

A friend was telling me yesterday that a certain field of psychology, developed in France, studies the memory of the  perpetrator group in genocides.  In a hundred years, it is thought, the forgotten crime evokes discussion and condemnation of the genocide among the descendants of the perpetrators.  

Only seven years before the centennial anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, there are still only a handful Turkish scholars who openly write and acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.  But given the fact that these scholars literally risk their lives and everything else they have, their existence is amazing.  Moreover, Turkey’s millions-of-dollars-campaign to attract non-Turkish scholars in the genocide denial “scholarship” has produced a pool of few professors who, I guess, don’t mind being the devil’s advocate as far as the devil is paying well.

This is, perhaps, the reason that the ultra-nationalist “deep state” apparatus in Turkey is freaking out that the list that has included Taner Akcam, Fatma Gocek, Elif Shafak and others is growing.

Mehmet Sait Uluışık, a Turkish-born Circassian, has only recently started researching the role of his own ethnic group – the Circassians – in perpetrating the Armenian Genocide although Mr. Uluışık is careful not to use the word ‘genocide.’

But Turkish nationalists already know that they can’t label Uluışık a “traitor” because the Circassian researcher is not investigating the genocide as a whole but is instead specifically looking into the role that his own people – a Muslim group from the Caucasus – played in the massacres.  Moreover, in Turkey’s attempt to deny, justify and downplay  the Armenian Genocide some have talked about “the Circassian genocide,” with a reference to persecution of the Circassian people under Tsarist Russia.

So yes, Mr. Mehmet Sait Uluışık is more dangerous for the Turkish apparatus than any other scholar so far.  And, so, he was recently denied entry to his homeland.

Here is a press release, received in e-mail, from Mr. Uluışık about what happened at the Turkish airport:

Notice to Press and Public

      My name is Mehmet Sait Uluışık and I was born in Eskişehir (Turkey) on July 10, 1959. On November 20, 2007, at Yeşilköy Airport (Istanbul), without presenting any justification but based upon an order from the Ministry of the Interior, I was declared a suspicious person, denied entry into Turkey and sent back to Berlin on the first return flight.

      I have been living in Germany since 1984 and have worked as a journalist and publisher since 1992. Because of my Circassian ethnic background I have been interested in Circassian history and since 2005 have stopped working actively as a journalist and publisher and started devoting all of my time to gathering documents on the subject.

      I was stripped of my Turkish citizenship in 1991 because of my failure to perform obligatory military service (based on Order #1956, dated June 7, 1991, supported by Statute 403, Section 25, paragraph ç). Since 1997, the year I became a German citizen, I have been entering and exiting Turkey regularly without incident.

      I was not provided with the official reason for denying my entry into Turkey. Despite this, based upon information that I was able to gather from contacts I made, the reason I was denied entry into Turkey is apparently to prevent my performing research at the Presidential Ottoman Archives (Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşiv, hereinafter “BOA”) in Istanbul.

      There is a very simple reason why my entry to Turkey was blocked instead of directly prohibiting my research at the archives. If the latter had occurred, it would have made an obvious statement that would have belied the arguments of the governing AK Party administration that “Our archives are open to all. Everyone’s welcome to come in and examine them,” or “let the historians form a commission.” By using a different strategy and preventing my entry into the country, it allows for the raising of a suspicion that there are perhaps other issues in my personal background.

      Recently, I started to wonder about the history of Circassians and I want to write a book about the subject. The actual topic that interests me is “Did the Circassians play any role in the events of 1915 and if so, what?” Also, I have been trying to find the answers to the question, “What was the relationship between Circassians and other minorities during the period in question, prior to that and afterwards?” For the past two years, I have been working in a regular, disciplined manner at the BOA and systematically gathering documents on the subject. A large part of my life during the past two years has been taken up this way at the archives in Istanbul.

      During my work at the archives I was frequently blocked in my efforts by the employees, who are known as followers of Turkish-Islamic synthesis (mostly supporters of the Turkish nationalist party). I believe that the denial of my entry into Turkey was the result of efforts by these same individuals. At the airport I was presented with a “Record of Denial of Entry” form. On the form was all of my identification information. This information taken from my German ID card is available in only one place, and that is the Presidential Ottoman Archives.

      The police officer at the airport informed me that the order [to deny entry] came directly from the Ministry of the Interior, not from the General Directorate of Security. Based upon his investigation of the issue, parliamentarian Mr. Ufuk Uras informed me that the entry denial did not come from the Ministry of National Defense nor did it have anything to do with military service.

      Since the issuance of the entry denial on Nov. 20, 2007, I have made no effort to broadcast this information. I believed that the ban was an effort to discredit the AK Party administration. I had hoped that the AK Party administration would quickly rectify the situation when it so obviously contradicts the government’s policies as stated to the public. I tried to remain silent because if the incident were revealed, it would create an obstacle in Turkey’s relations with the European Union and lead the way to lowering opinion towards the current administration and Turkey in general, especially after recent discourse regarding the events of 1915. I tried to resolve it through private channels.

      Unfortunately both my own efforts and those of my attorney to reach the authorities within the AK Party have come to a standstill. I was unable to get anywhere with my efforts. That leaves only one option: letting the public know, through the media, about a mindset that attempts to prevent an individual from conducting research in the archives by denying them entry into the country.

      It is obvious what sort of difficulty is going to befall someone like me who is doing nothing other than gathering documents in a systematic manner from the archives, if a government that claims “Our archives are open to all; we welcome the formation of a historians commission” turns around and not only denies that person access to the archives but even entry to the country itself. Nothing that Turkey and its administrations say on the subject can be considered credible. One can only smirk at a statement like “Let’s solve our problems from the past” when it comes out of a mindset that views working in the archives and gathering documents as criminal. This can only be answered with the statement, “Do your homework first, then open up the archives to everyone.”

      I want this disrespectful action against me resolved immediately and my work, which has been delayed because of it, compensated for as soon as possible.

      Respectfully,

      Mehmet Sait Uluışık

      Jan. 2, 2008 – Berlin

During the same week when Israeli president Shimon Peres apologized for the Kafr Kassem massacre of Arab civilians in 1956, official Armenia expressed its optimism that Israel will soon recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Written by the same author who reported the recent vandalism of Armenia’s Holocaust Memorial, an article in the Jerusalem Post states that an adviser to Armenia’s president explains that Israel’s affirmation of the Armenian Genocide is not a matter of if but of when.

The government of Armenia is “very hopeful” that Israel will soon recognize the World War I-era massacre of Armenians by Turks as an “act of genocide,” a senior Armenian official told The Jerusalem Post last week.

[…]

“I am very hopeful that Israel, step by step, will recognize it as well… We are very hopeful and we are waiting for it,” Yeritsyan said.

Contacted by the Post, a spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined to comment.

[…]

Israel, an ally of the Republic of Turkey, has been avoiding the term “genocide” when talking about the extermination of the Armenians.  Furthermore, some Israeli leaders, including Shimon Peres, have been charged with genocide denial in their attempts to minimize the Armenian experience.  Peres, for instance, has been fiercely criticized for an earlier characterization of Armenian accounts of the Genocide as “meaningless.”  In his more recent refusal to refer to the Armenian Genocide as such, nonetheless, Peres has said it is up to Turkey and Armenia to solve the “issue.”

The fact that Peres has officially apologized for the Kafr Kassem massacre is very encouraging and should serve as an example to the Turkish government.

I am not talking about recognizing the Armenian Genocide tomorrow and placing plaques next to the “memorials” of the organizers of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey telling the truth.  Israel apologizes for killing 48 civilians; why doesn’t Turkey apologize for over a million death?

Let’s say that Turkey genuinely believes that “only” 300,000 Armenians were killed during World War I.  Isn’t that 300,000 lives to apologize for?  Let’s say Turkey genuinely thinks the term genocide cannot be applied to the Armenian case; why doesn’t it apologize for “the Armenian massacre” then?

The horrible truth is that the denial of the Armenian Genocide is not a simple refusal to apply the term genocide to the Armenian experience.  The denial of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey is refusal that any kind of crime has been committed against the Armenian people.  It is microdenial – an attempt to legitimize the extermination of the Armenian civilization from what is today’s Turkey.

The mainstream media religiously say that “Turkey refuses the word genocide” as though as the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide only started after the word “genocide” was coined in 1944.

Years before anyone had word the term “genocide,” Turkey threatened to ban Hollywood movies if MGM produced a movie that dealt with resistance during the Armenian extermination based on a book banned by Hitler because of being written by a Jew.  After the State Department intervened, the movie was dropped.  Isn’t this absolute denial?

A research on the WWI Armenian Genocide based solely on official Ottoman sources that Turkish historian Taner Akcam alluded to in a recent interview will first appear in Turkish and then in English.

The winter 2007 newsletter of the Zoryan Institute, received in an e-mail, informs:

Vahakn Dadrian, Zoryan’s Director of Genocide Research, and Taner Akçam, renowned Turkish Sociologist and Historian, are collaborating to present the results of their archival research on the Takvim-i Vekâyi.

The Takvim-i Vekâyi, the official gazette of the Ottoman government, provides the only official record of the military tribunals prosecuting the Armenian Genocide. It documents the indictments, court sittings and verdictsn for thirteen trials, which took place 1919-1922 in Istanbul, of individuals accused of crimes against the Armenians in 1915. These military tribunals were extensive and represent one of the period’s most important political undertakings. The Takvim-i Vekâyi is a prime source of legal and eyewitness testimony for the Genocide.

The gazette was printed in Arabic script and is currently dispersed in different libraries throughout the world. It is very difficult to get a complete collection owing to the attempts of the Turkish state to systematically remove as many of the existing issues from circulation as possible. However, working with the Institute for the last five years, the authors have been able to compile a complete collection of these gazettes, have transliterated them into modern Turkish, and translated them into English.

The Key Indictment focused on the Cabinet Ministers and top leaders of the Committee for Union and Progress (CUP). The main feature of the Key Indictment is the set of forty-one documents contained within it. Most of these documents consist of decoded telegrams sent to and from the Interior Minister (Talât), the IIIrd and IVth Army Cdr., the Deputy Cdr. of the Vth Army Corps and the XVth Division from Ankara province, the Directors of the Special Organization, two Military Governors of Istanbul, and a host of governors and district commissioners.

The authors provide readers with an authoritative English translation, accompanied by an extensive historical and legal introduction. Against the ongoing industry of denial undertaken by the Turkish state and the contemporary political background of independent Armenia in its relation to Turkey, this record assumes critical relevance.

The Turkish edition will appear soon and the English edition will follow shortly thereafter.

Set to come up in March of 2008 in English translation by Maureen Freely and introduced by Elif Shafak, here is an excerpt from “My Grandmother,” a story of a Turkish lawyer who found out at an adult age that her grandmother was a hidden Armenian and a survivor of the Genocide. 

This excerpt is by another translator, Ayşe Agiş:

Whenever I remember the January of that year I get the shivers; I feel the cold in my deepest core, an ache takes hold of me. When she wanted to describe great suffering, my mother used to put her hand on her left breast and say, “Here, right here, there is a place which is one continuous ache.” So, I too, feel a gnawing, continuous ache in the depths of my heart.
       The freezing courtyard of the mosque is surrounded by a wall of huge, dark old stones. In the middle is the big “musalla” stone, so cold that just to look at it makes me shiver; and on it is a coffin. The “musalla” and its supporting base are both made of enormous blocks of stone. The stone under the coffin is so cold that I fear my hand would get stuck if I touched it. I keep away. It is as if all this, the giant walls, the stones, have all been designed to make the human being feel helpless, abject.
       Ever since, whenever I see a musalla stone, I feel cold whatever the season, and I hurry past. Sometimes, just out of the blue, that mosque courtyard, that musalla stone and that cold come to my mind. And I feel frozen all over again.
       Emrah called that night. “We’ve lost our grandmother,” he said.
       I know she is dead. This morning, at the cemetery, in the “gusulhane” (the very word makes me shiver), the women washed her, prepared her; then invited us in for the ceremonial farewell. I bade farewell to her cold body, kissed her cheeks. On my lips I still feel that chill which does not at all suit that skin so familiar to me. I know that she has been placed in this coffin, but I still cannot accept it. It all seems as if it is happening in a dream. I cannot believe that my grandmother would be lying so still and so helpless in that coffin. And also, that we, her family can be looking on in such helplessness.
       We, the women, stand waiting in the most isolated corner of the courtyard. As we stood there, embracing and weeping with the newcomers, a man from among the male throng came over in a flurry and asked:
       “What are the names of Aunt Seher’s mother and father?”
       There was no immediate answer to this question from the group of women. We each gazed at the others. Our silence went on for a noticeably long time. Then finally, the silence was broken by one of the women, my aunt Zehra:
       “Her father’s name is Huseyin, her mother’s Esma.”
       As soon as she uttered these names, my aunt turned her eyes to me as if asking for affirmation, or so it seemed to me.
       Just as the man turned away, relieved finally to have extracted an answer from this strangely reticent crowd of women, the following words tore themselves from my heart and broke out of my mouth:
       “But that’s not true!… Her mother’s name is not Esma, it is Isquhi. And her father is not Huseyin, but Hovannes!”