“Joe Biden: A Realist Cold War Liberal”

New from SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research:
Policy Brief No. 21, September 2008


Joe Biden: A Realist Cold War Liberal”

by Nuh YILMAZ,
George Mason University , Washington D.C.

http://www.setav.org/document/Policy_Brief_No_21_Nuh_Yilmaz.pdf

 

 

Joe Biden was selected as Barack Obama’s vice presidential candidate largely because of his expertise in foreign policy. Traditionally, in U.S. politics, Dick Cheney-like strong vice presidents are exception, not the rule. It is wiser to focus on Obama’s foreign policy outlook rather than Biden’s, which would benefit Turkey in the long run with its realistic tendencies. Biden’s voting pattern, as it is displayed in three different issues (Cyprus-Armenian Issue-Iraq) does not seem friendly to the Turkish position. However, Biden as a statesman would not create extra problems for Turkey at the expense of U.S national interests. In all of these issues, the person that should be watched carefully is Obama, not Biden. Spending more energy to analyze Obama’s geopolitical priorities can benefit Turkey in the long run.

Please find attached a copy of SETA Policy Brief No. 21, “Joe Biden: A Realist Cold War Liberal”

Please click on the following link to download the document:

http://www.setav.org/document/Policy_Brief_No_21_Nuh_Yilmaz.pdf

SETA FOUNDATION FOR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH
Resit Galip Caddesi Hereke Sokak No: 10 GOP, Cankaya 06700 Anka ra , Turkey
Tel: +90 312 405 61 51   Fax: +90 312 405 69 03
www.setav.org
[email protected]

Obama Wins Nomination; Biden and Bill Clinton Rally Party

 

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

Senator Barack Obama joined Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. on stage on Wednesday. More Photos >

DENVER — Barack Hussein Obama, a freshman senator who defeated the first family of Democratic Party politics with a call for a fundamentally new course in politics, was nominated by his party today to be the 44th president of the United States.

Skip to next paragraph

Multimedia

Slide Show

Working the Convention Crowds

 

Related

Man in the News: A Consistent Yet Elusive Nominee (August 28, 2008)

News Analysis: For Obama, a Challenge to Clarify His Message (August 27, 2008)

Clinton Rallies Her Troops to Fight for Obama (August 27, 2008)

The unanimous vote made Mr. Obama the first African-American to become a major party nominee for president. It brought to an end an often-bitter, two-year political struggle for the nomination with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, standing on a packed convention floor electric with anticipation, moved to halt the roll call in progress so that the convention could nominate Mr. Obama by acclamation. That it did with a succession of loud roars, followed by a swirl of dancing, embracing, high-fiving and chants of “Yes, we can.”

In an effort to fully close out the lingering animosity from the primary season, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech that had been anxiously awaited by Mr. Obama’s aides given the prickly relations between the two men, offered an enthusiastic and unstinting endorsement of Mr. Obama’s credentials to be president. His message, like the messenger, was greeted rapturously in the hall.

Mr. Clinton asserted, as Mrs. Clinton had when she spoke to the convention on Tuesday night, that the nation needed to elect a Democrat to restore the damage he said President Bush had done to the country, at home and around the world.

Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world.” Mr. Clinton said. “Ready to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States.”

Mr. Clinton was followed by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Mr. Obama’s choice for vice president, who used his speech to set out the Democratic case against the Republican opponent, Senator John McCain.

“Our country is less secure and more isolated than in any time in recent history,” Mr. Biden said. “The Bush-McCain foreign policy has dug us into a few deep holes with very few friends to help us climb out.”

“These times require more than a good soldier,” Mr. Biden said. They require a wise leader.”

In an address that was at turns personal, emotional and barbed, he said, “Today the American dream is slipping away.”

“John McCain doesn’t seem to get it,” Mr. Biden said. Barack Obama gets it.

To the delight of the crowd, at the conclusion of his address Mr. Biden was joined on stage by Mr. Obama, who made a point to thank Mr. Clinton — with whom he has had a prickly relationship — for his leadership as president. The historic nature of the moment quickly gave way to the political imperatives confronting Mr. Obama, who arrived here in the afternoon and is to accept the nomination Thursday night before a crowd of 75,000 people in a football stadium. After days in which the convention often seemed less about Mr. Obama than about the two families that have dominated Democratic politics for nearly a half-century, the Kennedys and the Clintons, he still faced a need to convince voters that he has concrete solutions to their economic anxieties and to rally his party against the reinvigorated candidacy of Mr. McCain.

The roll-call vote took place in the late afternoon — the first time in at least 50 years that Democrats have not scheduled their roll call on prime-time television — as Democrats sought to avoid drawing attention to the lingering resentments between Clinton and Obama delegates. Yet the historic nature of the vote escaped no one, and sent a charge through the Pepsi Center as a procession of state delegations cast their votes and the hall, slightly empty at the beginning of the vote, became shoulder-to-shoulder with Democrats eager to witness this moment.

As planned, it fell to Mrs. Clinton to put Mr. Obama over the top. He was declared the party’s nominee at 4:47 p.m. Mountain Time after Mrs. Clinton, in a light blue suit standing out in a crowd that included almost every elected New York official, moved that the roll call be suspended and that Mr. Obama by declared the party’s nominee by acclamation. The vote was timed to conclude during the network evening news broadcasts.

“With eyes firmly fixed on the future in the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and country, let’s declare together in one voice, right here and right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our president,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the nominee of the Democratic Party for president of the United States,” she said.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, standing at the lectern, asked for a second and was greeted by a roar of voices. A louder roar came from the crowd when she asked for support of the motion.

When the voting was cut off, Mr. Obama had received 1,549 votes, compared with 231 for Mrs. Clinton.

The hall pulsed when Mr. Clinton strode onto the stage for a performance that became a reminder of why Democrats had considered him a politician with once in a generation skills. There were no signs that screamed “Clinton,” but Democrats waved American flags in quick tempo to welcome him to the stage. Again and again, Mr. Clinton tried to quiet the crowd; they ignored him.

Skip to next paragraph

“You all sit down: We’ve got to get on with the show!” he said as the applause lingered on for more than three minutes and his wife watched from the floor.

Without mentioning Mr. McCain by name, he offered a sharp denunciation of him and Republicans as he made the case for Mr. Obama.

“The Republicans will nominate a good man who served our country heroically and suffered terribly in Vietnam,” he said, “He loves our country every bit as much as we all do. As a senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American Dream and how to restore America’s leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years.”

“They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more,” he said. “Let’s send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: Thanks, but no thanks.”

For Mr. Obama, the nomination — seized from Mrs. Clinton, who just one year ago was viewed as the obvious favorite to win the nomination especially against an opponent with a scant political resume — was a remarkable achievement in what has been a remarkable ascendance. It was less than four years ago that Mr. Obama, coming off of serving seven years as an Illinois state senator, became a member of the United States Senate. He is 47 years old, the son of a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya.

Mr. Obama’s nomination came 120 years after Frederick Douglass became the first African-American to have his name entered in nomination at a major party convention. Douglass received one vote at the Republican convention in Chicago in 1888; Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana went on to win the White House that year.

Making the moment even more striking was the historical nature of Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. She was the third woman whose name has been entered as a candidate for president at a major party convention. As she moved to end the roll-call vote, some women in the hall could be seen wiping tears from their eyes.

The presidential candidate is typically an absent figure during the first few days of a convention. In this case, Mr. Obama’s vacuum was filled by the Clintons and the tribute paid to the party to Mr. Kennedy on Monday night. What has taken place over the past two days might have politically necessary and even helpful, but it did not go far in helping Mr. Obama achieve some of the critical goals of this convention.

As a result, he is under considerable pressure Thursday night to use this speech in an ambitious setting, a football stadium, to present a fuller picture of himself, Americans who might have doubts about whether he is ready to be president, and begin presenting a picture of what he would do in the White House. For Mr. Obama, the final appearance is not the coda to a convention; in many ways, it may prove to be his entire convention.

Mr. Obama, who arrived in Denver just after 3 p.m., was at his hotel in downtown Denver with his wife and daughters when he learned that he had been nominated by acclamation.

Kitty Bennett, John Broder and Janet Elder contributed reporting.

 

Obama-Biden Democratic Presidential Ticket Strong on Genocide Recognition, US-Armenia Relations

 


   

WASHINGTON-The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) welcomed Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s announcement of longtime Armenian American issues supporter, Sen. Joe Biden as his choice for Vice-President. Sen. Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been an outspoken advocate of U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide and brings the principled international leadership needed to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

“As we stated back in January, Armenian Americans, a community that is deeply committed to a moral U.S. foreign policy and constructive American engagement abroad, respect Senator Biden’s leadership and, today, we welcome his addition to the Democratic ticket,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

Elected to office in 1972, Senator Biden has been a voice of moral clarity on issues of concern to the Armenian American community.

He has been a support for U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, dating back to his work with Senator Bob Dole to pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.J.Res.212) in 1990, and stronger U.S.-Armenia relations.

Sen. Biden was also a perennial supporter of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, adopted in 1992, which restricted U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan due to its ongoing blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.

In May, 2007, Sen. Biden, in response to a question from the Los Angeles Times editorial board about the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.Res.106), said: “I support it, and the reason is simple: I have found in my experience that you cannot have a solid relationship with a country based on fiction. It occurred. It occurred.” Senator Biden has been cosponsor of every resolution reaffirming the Armenian Genocide introduced in the Senate over the past 20 years.

In connection with his leadership in pressing the Administration to explain its firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, and the controversy over the subsequent nomination of Dick Hoagland in 2007, Senator Biden secured from the Administration a number of commitments, among them that:
  • The next U.S. Ambassador to Armenia will meet extensively with representatives of the Armenian American community before and during their tenure in Yerevan.
  • The State Department will brief Members of Congress on its efforts to promote Turkish recognition of the real history of the Armenian Genocide.
  • U.S. ambassadors to Yerevan and Ankara would exchange visits for the purpose of ending Turkey’s economic blockade of Armenia.

Sen. Biden also authored a resolution (S.Res.65), which was adopted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent, to honor journalist Hrant Dink, who was assassinated in Turkey last year for writing about the Armenian Genocide.

In July, 2008, Sen. Biden reiterated his commitment to securing U.S. and Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide in connection with the nomination of U.S. Ambassador to Armenian Marie Yovanovitch. “Recognition by the United States of the Armenian Genocide is not the final goal. The real goal is the recognition of Turkey – of the Turkish Government – of the Armenian Genocide and the establishment of a common Turkish-Armenian understanding of the events and tragedy that took place,” stated Sen. Biden.

The ANCA endorsed Senator Obama in the Democratic primaries and will announce its general election endorsement decision following the Democratic and Republican primaries. The ANC of Iowa had endorsed Sen. Joe Biden in his presidential election bid prior to the Iowa primary earlier this year.

 
 

Friday, August 22, 2008

http://www.asbarez.com/index.html?showarticle=34435_8/23/2008_1

Obama-Biden Democratic Presidential Ticket Strong on Genocide Recognition, US-Armenia Relations

Obama-Biden CIFTINE PELOSI’YIDE ILAVE EDINCE UCGENIN AYAKLARI TAMAMLANMAKDA..  OBAMANIN BASKANLIGI SAYET GERCEKLESIRSE .. HEPIMIZ ACI BIR SURPRIZE SIMDIDEN HAZIRLANALIM … tf 

WASHINGTON-The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) welcomed Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s announcement of longtime Armenian American issues supporter, Sen. Joe Biden as his choice for Vice-President. Sen. Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been an outspoken advocate of U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide and brings the principled international leadership needed to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.
“As we stated back in January, Armenian Americans, a community that is deeply committed to a moral U.S. foreign policy and constructive American engagement abroad, respect Senator Biden’s leadership and, today, we welcome his addition to the Democratic ticket,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

Elected to office in 1972, Senator Biden has been a voice of moral clarity on issues of concern to the Armenian American community.

He has been a support for U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, dating back to his work with Senator Bob Dole to pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.J.Res.212) in 1990, and stronger U.S.-Armenia relations.

Sen. Biden was also a perennial supporter of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, adopted in 1992, which restricted U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan due to its ongoing blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh.

In May, 2007, Sen. Biden, in response to a question from the Los Angeles Times editorial board about the Armenian Genocide Resolution (S.Res.106), said: “I support it, and the reason is simple: I have found in my experience that you cannot have a solid relationship with a country based on fiction. It occurred. It occurred.” Senator Biden has been cosponsor of every resolution reaffirming the Armenian Genocide introduced in the Senate over the past 20 years.

In connection with his leadership in pressing the Administration to explain its firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, and the controversy over the subsequent nomination of Dick Hoagland in 2007, Senator Biden secured from the Administration a number of commitments, among them that:
  • The next U.S. Ambassador to Armenia will meet extensively with representatives of the Armenian American community before and during their tenure in Yerevan.
  • The State Department will brief Members of Congress on its efforts to promote Turkish recognition of the real history of the Armenian Genocide.
  • U.S. ambassadors to Yerevan and Ankara would exchange visits for the purpose of ending Turkey’s economic blockade of Armenia.
Sen. Biden also authored a resolution (S.Res.65), which was adopted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by unanimous consent, to honor journalist Hrant Dink, who was assassinated in Turkey last year for writing about the Armenian Genocide.

In July, 2008, Sen. Biden reiterated his commitment to securing U.S. and Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide in connection with the nomination of U.S. Ambassador to Armenian Marie Yovanovitch. “Recognition by the United States of the Armenian Genocide is not the final goal. The real goal is the recognition of Turkey – of the Turkish Government – of the Armenian Genocide and the establishment of a common Turkish-Armenian understanding of the events and tragedy that took place,” stated Sen. Biden.

The ANCA endorsed Senator Obama in the Democratic primaries and will announce its general election endorsement decision following the Democratic and Republican primaries. The ANC of Iowa had endorsed Sen. Joe Biden in his presidential election bid prior to the Iowa primary earlier this year.

Friday, August 22, 2008

http://www.asbarez.com/index.html?showarticle=34435_8/23/2008_1

Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama


Dear Senator Obama,

 

Recently, a friend wrote to you about her concerns on your support of the myhtical Armenian genocide, which is rejected by those who know what happened during those terrible First World War years. Your response to her stated that  “I share your view that the United States must recognize the events of 1915 to 1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as genocide. As you know, this resulted in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed.”

 

The above statement has been taken directly from the HR 106 (Item 1) which was shelved by the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007 because it was full of distortions and lies and had no chance of passage in the House of Representatives. My friend did not state any of those false claims or that the Armenian genocide should be recognized. On the contrary, she asked you to reject the Armenian claims. As I also wrote to you in 2007 and early this year, what you have stated in your kind response are false and what happened in 1915 can not be categorized as genocide. What your advisors are telling you are lies and falsified propaganda stories, which are shown in historical documents that can be found in the US archives, especially in the Near East Relief Report.

The  Near East Relief Report is dated 22.04.1922 but gives the status of 1921 year-end, signed by James Barton. As of end of 1921, 200.000 to 300.000 refugees were alive in Syria and in need of housing (since they are alive).

Barton, approved with thanks by Armenian Patriarchs Bezdjian (Protestant) and Sayegiiyan (Catholic) confirmed the following: 

P. 4 –   It states that 300.000 Armenians returned to Cilicia after British-French occupation, but that they evacuated the region in 1921 after F. Bouillon’s Treaty with Kemalist Turks. 

 


P. 5 – The number of living people in Russian Armenia is 1 million and 500.000 of these need help of the Relief Organization. (This 1 million matches with Katchaznuni and Lalaian statements for 1918, before war – 200.000 who died of starvation until end of 1921 there.
It states that at the time 1.000.000 are alive in Caucasus Armenia,- 500.000 in need of help!P. 8 – It gives account of 64.000 alive in 124 orphanages + 50.000 in the areas = 114.000 living.

P. 9 – Relief activities continued in full during Kemalist rule in all areas, since the US was not at war with Turkey. The following figures were given for some of the orphanages: Ankara 350, Kayseri 3190, Harput 5176, Konya 813, Sivas 1368, Maras 468 etc. It states that 500.000 persons migrated from Anatolia to Caucasus region. (Other sources had indicated this figure as 400.000). It lists various orphanages in occupied – unoccupied cities of the Ottoman Empire and Kemalists, showing that Turks never hindered their activities!

Throughout the report, there is not a word of Turkish atrocities or refusal of cooperation or attacks on relief goods protected by famished soldiers or Turks, and that only Christians received subject Relief!  Generally there’s NO mention of “massacre-genocide or even LACK OF HELP” of Turks!  In fact, Ch.15 –  “Population Controversy” proves that figures of Art. 1 of HS 106 and alike are all tall lies! 

Unfortunaley, Near East Relief is continuing its activities at present as “The Near East Foundation” uner the influence of Armenian administrators and recognizes the mythical genocide despite the presence of the above report in their archives which proves otherwise.

 

We are all aware of the new book that just came out “Obama Nation” which is also full of lies and your campaign has rejected the book in a 40 page “Unfit to Publication” rebuttal. This is exactly the way many Turks and Americans characterize “Ambassador Morgenthau”s Story”, the mother of all anti-Turkish material published under his name but actually written by his Armenian secretray and Armenian translator with input from many anti-Turkish circles. This book too was unfit for publication and the suggestion to turn it into a movie was rejected by President Wilson even though he had no love for Turkey and wanted to divide the Ottoman Empire. And yet millions have read this book for over 90 years and have been exposed to a falsified history of Turkish-Armenian and Turkish-American relations.

 

Below is a document, “White paper: The Armenian Issue” prepared by a group of professionals and intellectuals living in Holland, Germany, France, Turkey, the United States, etc., who would like to see this issue resolved. I am sure, if you and your advisors and supporters also read this document, your false and unjustified attitude will also change, the cornerstone of your campaign.

 

Regards.

 

Yuksel Oktay

16 August 2008

New Jersey

 

White Paper  : The Armenian Issue

 July 2008

I.                    Introduction

     Statesmen in western countries are often besieged by representatives of Armenian groups representing huge voting blocks demanding resolutions or “Denier” legislation -with penalties- in connection with events that occurred in Eastern Anatolia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As they would with any other constituents, legislators typically feel obliged to hear these people out and somewhat obligated to represent their interests.

       The historical events in question are extremely complex. Not only did they occur in a Moslem culture which is seldom studied to the requisite level of detail by typical students in Western Colleges – or even by future History Teachers – but the particular events in question occurred at the center of an extremely complex web of relationships between nations of extremely diverse cultural backgrounds.  Legislators approached with these demands:

 

·        Are not elected to legislate on the true nature of extremely complex events that occurred over a century ago.

·        Are not at all equipped to evaluate their veracity and have increasingly been turning to a group of “genocide scholars” which suddenly appeared in roughly the same time frame at which the Armenians started voicing their demands loudly (in the 60’s).

 

American citizens of Turkish Ancestry report many incidents of ethnic prejudice in their daily lives as a result of these campaigns but they are -almost everywhere- vastly outnumbered as constituents by the Armenians. The same situation is true for persons of Turkish ancestry residing in other western countries.

 

 The Armenian Groups have been widely successful in representing their ideological opponents as “Genocide Deniers” comparing them to David Irving and others who go so far as to claim that there are “unanswered questions about the Nazi Gas Chambers”. This slander has been so successful that representatives from the Turkish side are typically either not allowed to speak their case before critical decisions are made, or when given the opportunity to speak, it is only in a poisoned, prejudicial atmosphere.

 

 Due process, freedom of speech, presuming one innocent until proven guilty, assessing the credibility of evidence and the right to a defense are the foremost values of democracy and all civilized jurisprudence. Armenian genocide proponents, time and again are given free rein to convince an unknowing public that Turkey and Turks are not entitled to these most basic underlying rights and values of all civilized societies.

 The continuing efforts by the Armenian Propagandists create many problems in international relations and in the lives of new generation of Turks in different countries who face accusations about their ancestors who report many incidents of ethnic prejudice in their daily lives.  The continuous accusations of an unacknowledged genocide, and of a deliberate cover-up results in a pervasive atmosphere of distrust and prejudice against Turks and the unfounded allegations do tremendous damage to Turkey ‘s image in the West.

 

The purpose of this White Paper is to present the facts: incidents leading to, the cause for and the aftermath of the decision to relocate Armenians living in eastern Anatolia during WWI, and to explain why that decision did not amount to “genocide”.

 

II.                 Background

Complicity of the movement with Organized Crime

 

1.1 The movement for recognition of a genocide label has not been a peaceful movement. Although many of the participants in the movement are law-abiding citizens, the movement in general gave its silent assent and financial support to a series of terrorist acts perpetrated against Turkish Civil Servants in the period spanning to 1973-1991. A total of 110 acts of terror were carried out by Armenian terrorists in 38 cities of 21 countries. 39 of these were armed attacks, 70 of them bomb attacks and one was an occupation. 42 Turkish diplomats and 4 foreign nationals were assassinated in these attacks, while 15 Turks and 66 foreign nationals were wounded. These acts were not openly condemned by the movement; it raised funds for legal defense of some of the perpetrators and openly treated others as heroes. An atmosphere of confusion resulting from the profuse Anti-Turkish Government propaganda they generated at the time afforded them some level of face-saving and bought them much needed time and cover and enabled them to spread intimidation and terror against anyone who might dare oppose them -all in an era when the West’s approach to terrorism was characterized by that naïveté of the pre-2001 World.

1.2  In 1977, the home of UCLA History Professor Stanford Shaw -who had taken the position after studying the Turkish Archives that there was no directly intended genocidal attempt on the Armenians- was bombed by Armenian Extremists.

 

The Genocide ‘Scholar’ factor:

 

2.1 The rise of the Genocide “Scholar” movement coincided roughly with virulent rise of Armenian Diaspora demands in the West. The movement came into being largely through the efforts of individuals rather than through a combined effort by established academic institutions. Moreover, unlike conventional transactions in established academic institutions, the transactions of the genocide “scholars” are conducted behind closed doors; individuals who disagree with their thesis report that they are made to know that they are not welcome. Their process is not transparent and they do not uniformly enforce recognized standards of academic rigor

 

2.2 The movement’s habit of attacking the integrity and character of their ideological opponents -on the Armenian issue- as “Genocide Deniers” is highly irregular in the academic community which normally appeals to documentation and (objective) evidence rather than personal attacks on the integrity of their opponents. Even in the case of the true deniers of the Nazi Holocaust, such individuals are easily dispatched by appealing to logical proofs and documentary evidence rather than by propagandistic accusations against their character. Furthermore their castigation of their ideological opponents as “Genocide Deniers” amounts to a condemnation of practically an entire ethnic group since the overwhelming majority of Turks feel very strongly that the events in question cannot rightly be labeled “genocide”. To date the “Genocide Scholar” movement has attempted to avoid being stigmatized as racist by pursuing a two-pronged strategy:

·        All rhetoric is directed at the Turkish Government arguing that it is not the Turkish People but the Turkish Government that is guilty of “Genocide Denial”.  Care is taken to represent the Turkish People as a race brainwashed by their government and thus somewhat innocent of the crime of “Genocide Denial”. By this tactic, the Armenian lobby and their ‘scholar’-allies attempt to avoid the appearance of stigmatizing an entire race as “Genocide Deniers” while, in reality, they are doing exactly that.

·

·        Psychologist and leading spokesman for the movement, Israel Charny, has formulated an elaborate theory of “Genocide Denial” which allows for the existence of what he terms “innocent deniers.” According to this theory, huge groups of people can fall under the heading of “innocent deniers” who, he assures us, “may not really be aware of the genocide they are helping to deny,” and while somewhat innocent are yet “Genocide Deniers” nevertheless. Clearly, by virtue of this theory Charny would have us exempt him from the stigma associated with pejorative condemnation of an entire ethnic group (i.e. almost all people of Turkish Ancestry both in Turkey and abroad ) and escape the epithet of “Racist”. The last time we saw people talk about an entire race like this was during World War II, when the Nazis argued that although some Jews appeared to be good, and tried to be good, they could not help themselves from being evil nonetheless. After all, the Nazis argued, it was in their blood to do evil.

 

2.3 The movement’s response to the Statement of the 69 Academicians published in several leading newspapers is most telling of their modus operandi. In 1985 a large paid advertisement appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post and Washington Times, signed by 69 Americans specializing in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies objecting to the use of the “genocide” label in House Joint Resolution then before the U.S. Congress. Instead of openly debating the issue, the genocide ‘scholar’ movement immediately embarked on an effort to discredit these academics on various grounds, insinuating that some of them may have been corrupted by having received research grants from the Turkish Government, etc. The response is conspicuous for the absence of any serious scholarly debate about the issues and concerns raised by these Academicians in the paid Advertisement; instead it consists primarily of insinuated personal attacks on the professional and academic integrity of the signatories who, like all ideological opponents of the movement – are collectively slandered as “Genocide Deniers”.  All of this constitutes a serious departure from recognized standards of academic integrity;  to immediately attack and denigrate ideological opponents before speaking to the substance of the issue – especially in consideration of the credentials of the individuals in question – should place a very serious onus on the accusers.  This constant pattern of relentless personal attacks on the integrity and professional qualifications of their ideological opponents followed by declaration of ideological/rhetorical victory when the slander campaign succeeds cannot be tolerated any longer. 

 

Who are the Armenians?

 

3.1 The Armenians are a Christian People whose history goes back as far as the earliest centuries of Christianity. Of all the ancient patriarchates of Christianity, the Armenians have the distinction of being the only Patriarchate to have developed and evolved outside of the ancient Roman Empire . All the other ancient patriarchates, the Alexandrian, the Roman, the Greek, the Jerusalem and the Syrian, evolved and flourished -until the rise of the Arab Empire- within the boundaries of the Roman Empire . It is worth noting that the adoption of Christianity as the state religion under Constantine in 325 CE was preceded by a similar event -devoid of any political or social connections- in Armenia , where the monarch, Triadates, had converted just two decades previously effectively bringing with him practically the entire population of the country. Though the Armenians from time to time were tributary to the Roman Empire, there was no prolonged period in the pre-Arab era during which they were full subjects of the Roman empire . Thus, the political forces and social climate which sometimes influenced the development of church doctrine were different in the Armenian church. Armenian bishops were present, however at most major Church councils as far back as the Nicene, and participated with their peers in the deliberations. The Great Church Controversies of the 5th century resulted in the Armenians permanently rejecting Ecclesiastical control from either Rome or Constantinople . Though Christians, the Armenians remained in many ways separated from the West for over a thousand years, well beyond the middle ages. They were a protected minority when the Ottoman Empire was at its height and Europe was trembling at the advance of the Ottoman Armies. As the Ottoman Empire began to decline in the 18th-19th centuries however, and the “Great Powers” of Europe and “Holy Russia” foresaw the impending collapse of the “Sick man”, the Armenians were re-discovered by the Christian West not only as long-lost fellow Christians but as potential contacts in a territory which the principle of the “balance of power” dictated should be divided equitably among the existing powers in case of collapse and dismemberment. This re-discovery with its attendant mixed motives was to have unfortunate consequences for the Armenians when the hour of final collapse came in the War we now call the “Great War”. 

 

These newly re-discovered Christians were viewed not only as potential future allies in connection with territorial ambitions but also as potential proselytes.  Protestant missionaries were sent in to win over, wherever possible, new converts from the long-separated Armenian fold to the doctrines of the Protestant Reformers that had so changed the texture of Western Christianity in the interval of separation.  These were soon followed by Roman Catholic Missionaries – all of whose efforts were to be backed by a conspicuously high level of support from their respective governments. But though the Armenians were very accepting of new western ideologies -particularly nationalism – the assiduous efforts of the missionaries did not result in nearly as many conversions as they had hoped for; most Armenians remained attached to the “Orthodox Armenian” Church.  In the 19th century there were nearly 2,000 foreign religious missions in Anatolia hailing from the United states , the United Kingdom , France , Germany , Austria , Italy , etc. 

Although they established educational institutions, they involved themselves in the lives of the Armenians and had the effect of separating them from the Turks.  Documentary evidence shows that the Missionary Schools ultimately had a role in the Armenian revolutionary activity.

 

III.             The Problems and Issues

The Provocation: The Armenian insistence on the Genocide label generally ignores or diminishes the very serious provocation in the hour of Peril. Unlike the American Experience in WWII, in which there were no civilian casualties, Armenian Revolutionary Activity in the years leading up to 1915 involved many instances of brutal killings of Non-Armenian Moslem Turkish civilians. Furthermore the Armenian Military leaders, emboldened by the support they were receiving from the Western Powers and Russia , were even reckless enough to inform the Turks that they would not side with them in the impending war but would instead side with the enemy (Imperial Russia). The Armenian insistence on the “Genocide” label ignores the seriousness of this activity, the great loss of (Moslem Turkish) life and the ramifications of colluding with an extremely powerful enemy in the hour of great danger.

 

The word “genocide”: In the words of one recent author, this word “evokes implicit comparisons with the Nazi past” and this imagery which the word carries in popular usage is inescapable when decisions are being made by civic institutions on the matter. In fact Armenians lived peacefully for centuries with Turks in an atmosphere directly opposite to that in which European Jews lived for centuries. This is precisely what makes the accusation of ‘genocide’ – when originating from the West toward Turks – so insulting and intolerable. The problem started when revolutionary elements among the Armenians – encouraged by Christian powers with territorial ambitions in the collapsing Ottoman Empire – embarked on a path that threw the entire region into turmoil sparking a conflict that quickly grew out of control, gravely endangering the vast majority of the Armenian Population, precipitating the Great Armenian Tragedy of 1915. These Armenian revolutionaries killed tens of thousands of innocent Turkish Muslims in their attempt to create a nation-state of their own.  Their collusion with the invading Russian Armies resulted Turkish deaths numbering in the hundreds of thousands. These massacres of Muslim Turks, many of which took place well before the Ottoman government decided to relocate a large part of its Armenian citizens, amounted to ethnic cleansing. Since Jews did no such thing before the holocaust started, it is utterly dishonest to directly or indirectly compare the Holocaust to the Armenian Tragedy of 1915.

 

Intolerance and hatred: the Armenian allegations and their reckless campaign against Turkey has fostered in the West an atmosphere of hatred toward present-day Turks, who were not even alive at the time of the events in question. Turks often feel discriminated against and they often feel unwanted. The campaign waged by Armenians and their allies has assumed the proportions of a campaign against Turkey and against Turks. This even though Turkey as a state did not exist until 1923 (that is 8 years after the Armenian tragedy). In response, Turks often are unwilling to engage with Armenians or genocide ‘scholars’ on this subject, let alone speak out to Western newspapers or politicians. The result of this, in turn, is that the Turkish side does not get any exposure, while the Armenian side constantly has and takes the opportunity to share its views with the world. This only increases the intolerance already existing.

 

History becomes political: Because Turks are never heard, the debate about what happened before, during and after World War I is not much of a debate in the West anymore. Most people simply assume that Armenians were victims of genocide. To Armenians this is probably not a problem, but the reality of the matter is that the historians -with the exception of a few specialists – are less sure about what happened than politicians. Politicians, under pressure from powerful constituencies, propose bills that ‘recognize’ the Armenian ‘genocide’ while individuals who have studied this subject carefully and objectively are not able to share a collective conclusion. Some history professors say that the Tragedy constitutes genocide, but many others do not[1]. Normally history would be left to historians, but nowadays history is turned into a political tool and the fear of a slander campaign has the effect of bullying historians into silence. As a result, the truth – and history itself – suffers.

 

IV.              Conclusion: call for action

When all the evidence is examined, an impartial observer must admit that the movement for recognition of a “genocide” label for the Armenian Tragedy is not at all the humanitarian movement that its promoters would have us believe it to be.   Instead, it is not only a deliberate distortion of historical facts but has as its malignant fruits ethnic hatred, terrorism and murder, defamation and intimidation of historians, suppression of true scholarship, the politicization of history and disruption of legitimate political processes in Western Countries. We call upon all recipients of this document to take all steps in their power to ensure that no further support be given to such a clearly harmful and deceitful movement. 

 

 

 

Index of Misrepresentations of Fact

Associated with

The Armenian Issue

 

 

Continued use of Wartime Propaganda as Historical sources…………………………………………………. 2

Morgenthau’s Story…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

The British Blue Book………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Intentional omission of key parts of the story……………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Continued use of Ancestral War Stories……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Using False Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

The Hitler Quote………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Armenian Propagandists often cite two sources in particular:  “Ambassador Morganthau’s Story” and the British “Blue Book” prepared by the young graduate student Arnold Toynbee.   To the uninformed layman these documents have the appearance of reliable historical sources.  But from the point of view of competent historians there are several problems with these sources.

 

·        The most glaring problem with the continued use of these two sources is that it violates a fundamental principle of historical research: single sources cannot be viewed out of the context of all primary documentation available on the subject.   In other words, if overwhelming evidence from other known facts and documents throws one or two sources in doubt, the discrepancy must be reconciled.   Both of these documents are known -on the testimony of the authors themselves- to have been intended as wartime propaganda to secure the entry of the U.S. into the war.  This fact -by itself- does not necessarily impeach them, but when viewed in conjunction with all the remaining evidence it becomes clear that they have little value as historical records and are instead to be regarded as primarily wartime propaganda. . 

 

·        Those who have seen war first hand describe its cruelty, inhumanity and injustice.  Almost any war, when viewed through the eyes of one side only, can look like a genocide.  Both Morganthau’s story and the British Blue Book are clear examples of one-sided documents.  Reputable historians view them as having, at best, very limited value for understanding the events of 1915,  but when presented to the uninitiated public they produce an extremely distorted and misleading picture of those events.

 

U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau – though he lived long before President Nixon – had a similar habit of keeping a scrupulous record of his daily activities; not on tape but in writing.  We have his diaries and extensive documentation of so many events of his daily life.   His book -which appeared in what was then one of America’s best-known magazines, “The World’s Work” (circ. 120,000) read like an adventure novel and was such a sensation that not only did it play a major role in securing America’s entry into the war, but it even received a movie offer from Hollywood which Morgenthau rejected only at the urging of President Wilson himself.  But when the “stories” in his book are checked against the records in his diary and other personal records, the value of the work as an historical source is destroyed completely.   Furthermore, the book itself is characterized by a significant number of anti-Turkish clauses which are nothing less than racist; an element that was necessary for propaganda value.  Turks are portrayed as an inferior race.  One of the main themes of the book is a series of stories portraying the Central Government as having had a conspiracy to exterminate the Armenians.  But even if we were to disregard the other obvious problems with Morgenthau’s book, there are irreconcilable problems with these stories.  For example:

 

·        Why is it that there are so many communications -still extant in the original- coming from this same government warning that anyone who molested the deported Armenians or who failed to protect them adequately would be punished severely?

·        If the government had a conspiracy to exterminate the Armenians, why is there so much documentation showing that this same government punished and even executed in many cases persons whom it considered guilty of massacring innocent Armenians?

·        If the government wanted to exterminate the Armenians, why did it offer them Autonomy in August 1914, in Erzurum- an offer which they promptly rejected ?

 

In summary, Morgenthau’s diary is generally regarded as a reliable primary historical source by both sides but this diary clearly exposes his book, Morgenthau’s Story as a propaganda piece. 

 

 

A second source that is continually used by Armenian Propagandists is the British Blue Book, published in 1916 mostly through the efforts of Arnold Toynbee who was at the time a graduate Student.  Abundant evidence exists to show that the intention of the British Government in producing the Blue Book was to bring about the entry of the U.S. into the war; not to deliver a comprehensive portrayal of what was happening in Eastern Anatolia at the time. Again, by itself this fact does not necessarily impeach the work.  However there are several problems with the use of this document as an historical source authenticating a label of “genocide”:

 

·        Contrary to the assertions of Armenian Propagandists, the Blue Book contains no evidence proving that the Turkish government was responsible for the massacres[2] described therein and the atmosphere of near-anarchy and local animosity stemming from the depravity of the Armenian Revolutionaries, would tend to militate against such a conclusion in any case.

·        Contrary to the assurances of co-Author Lord Bryce, that most of the stories in the Blue book came from “eye-witnesses”, most of the evidence presented in the work is hearsay evidence, not first hand.

·        Five years after compiling it, Toynbee would visit Turkey , report his deep shock at the instances of cruelty and barbarity he saw perpetrated by Greeks against Moslem Turks in Western Anatolia, and then later reveal that he had -all along- been ignorant of Armenian provocation in Eastern Anatolia[3].

 

The Relocation of the Armenians -the event which witnessed such great suffering and loss of life- occurred in 1915.  The year 1908 was the year of the “Young Turk” revolution.  As a result of this revolution, there was a breakdown of law and order in many parts of Anatolia .  Later, in 1914 when World War 1 broke out, conditions became so desperate that not only able-bodied

men but even policemen were called to the front to defend the country as Turks were dying by the thousands in a conflict of apocalyptic proportions at Gallipoli.  This added to the breakdown of law and order and brought Eastern Anatolia to a near-anarchic condition.  By this time Armenian Revolutionary activity – complete with internal attacks on non-combatant civilians – had been going on not for years but for decades.  And it was at this time that Armenian Revolutionary leaders felt so confident in Allied help that they decided to risk everything and refuse to enter the war on the side of their country – even the best Armenian primary sources admit this.   They openly recruited Armenian men from within the borders of the country to side with “Holy Russia”,  the hereditary enemy of the Ottomans.  It was in this desperate atmosphere that the Central Government decided on the Relocation Order, which had such dire consequences. Extensive documentary evidence is still extant showing that the Central Turkish Government not only sent out messages warning that the relocated Armenians were to be protected,  but later carried through on threats to punish -even with execution- responsible parties who were negligent in their duty to protect the Armenians on their journey.   Contrary to claims of Armenian Propagandists who omit all this important information from the story, this relocation order did not amount to a death sentence for the Armenians.   It was a desperate last-ditch effort to solve a seemingly impossible problem precipitated by the Armenian Revolutionaries themselves and the meddling of the “Great Powers” in the internal affairs of the crumbling Ottoman Empire .  Although there were many deaths in this relocation:

 

·        Many survived in their new location or emigrated to various locations.

·        Many returned after a law was passed ending the relocation .

·        Food was scarce and Non-Armenians (Turks especially) were dying of starvation everywhere.

·        Many of the deaths resulted from an atmosphere of anarchy; outlaws roamed the countryside with impunity.

 

Finally, the intent here is not to absolve the 1915 Central Turkish Leadership from all blame but to show that use of the “genocide” label in this case is not only wholly unjustified, but in most cases deliberately deceitful. 

Armenian Propagandists make continued use of stories of the deaths of their ancestors many of whom died in truly deplorable circumstances.   The stories are repeatedly told in conjunction with Armenian attempts to have the events of 1915 labeled a “genocide”.  What can one say when confronted with these stories many of which are undoubtedly true?  On the one hand, one does not wish to show disrespect for these individuals or negate the seriousness of the situations, however there are several serious problems with this continued use of these Ancestral war-stories:

·        Many Moslem Turkish Civilians died at the hands of Armenian Revolutionaries under circumstances that were as bad -and often worse- than the circumstances under which the Armenian deaths occurred.  The Turks are only too well aware of these stories because their families were affected for generations but the consequences.  However the Armenians make it quite clear that it is the life of a Christian Armenian that should count and stories of the tragic deaths of so many Moslem Turks are rigidly suppressed by the Armenians. 

·        The implication of innocence is clear in the telling of these stories by the Armenians.  It is true that many of the dead were non-combatant civilians but it is also true that the whole episode was precipitated by the actions of Armenian Revolutionaries who brutally massacred Moslem Turks in a widespread campaign to establish a “Western Armenia” and “take back” lands that they regarded as hereditarily theirs – lands in which they constituted at that time only a very small minority.

 

One of the most common “proofs” used by Armenian activists in support of their claim of “genocide” is a book known as The Memoirs of Naim Bey.  This book is represented as proof that the Ottoman Government deliberately exterminated the Armenian population of Anatolia . The source of the book was a certain Armenian man named Aram Andonian who translated it into Armenian.  He claimed that he came into the possession of official Ottoman documents, telegrams and decrees, many of which were supposedly signed by Ottoman Interior Minister Talat Pasha.  Briefly, the list of authentication problems with this Book and with Andonian’s story of how he came into possession of the “documents” contained therein is very long.  And so is the list of reputable historians -specialists in this field- who reject them outright as forgeries.  Even the British Authorities charged with prosecuting Ottoman rulers after the First World War refused to use them at that time.  But the Armenian Propagandists continue to pass them off on an unsuspecting public as authentic proof of a program to exterminate the Armenians.  See these websites for critical discussion of this forged work:

Armenian activists often claim that Hitler said that he could get away with exterminating European Jewry because no one “remembers today the extermination of the Armenians”.  This “statement” appears (in more or less these words) in the leaflets handed out by groups of demonstrating young Armenians, on the cover of books and in articles written by Armenian authors. Furthermore, the “statement” is written at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. , where millions of visitors every year read it, many believing that Hitler felt confident he could exterminate the Jews because the Ottomans had been successful in Armenians.

 

There is just one problem with the quote: Hitler never said it (Lowry, Heath, “The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians.” Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc. Washington , D.C. Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2 (1985)). Armenian activists have him saying it in a meeting with his General staff. This was, they claim, brought to light in the Nuremberg trials. The problem is that actual transcripts of this meeting, (Hitler’s speeches and recollections of leading Nazis accepted as authentic by the Nuremberg court) do not contain any such reference to Armenians; they only have him calling them “unreliable” and “dangerous”. Instead, the quote was taken from a book, written in 1942, by someone who was never able to authenticate his claim. It was later reproduced in an article by an unnamed writer for Times of London on Saturday, November 24, 1945, but it was most definitely not used by the Nuremberg prosecutors. In short; Hitler never said it, yet Armenians continue to use it to back up their case against the Turks.

 

[1] For an excellent discussion of the problems with use of the Blue Book see p137-139 Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey . A Disputed Genocide, Salt Lake City , University of Utah Press, 2005

 

[1] This confession appears on page 276 of Toynbee’s 1922 work “The Western Question in Greece and Turkey “. 

 

http://www.meforum.org/article/748

http://www.eraren.org/index.php?Lisan=en&Page=YayinIcerik&SayiNo=15

 



[1] See addendum for list of some of the scholars who believe that, although what happened was terrible, it most certainly does not constitute genocide