Mass grave outside of Mardin to be opened by international delegation

Assertions made in an article in the Turkish magazine "Nokta" last year that mass Armenian graves could be found in the town of Nusaybin outside of the city of Mardin were taken up by Swedish professor David Gaunt, who then brought these assertions to the attention of the Swedish Parliament.

Gaunt's accusations have elicited a response from the head of the Turkish History Foundation (TTK), Professor Yusuf Halacoglu, who has invited all interested parties to come to Turkey and participate together in an opening up the gravesite in question. Professor Halacoglu, who subsequently received an affirmative answer from Professor Gaunt, said the following regarding the situation:

"Professor Gaunt has said that he would be pleased to cooperate in the opening up of the gravesite in the Mardin area town of Nusaybin. However, he has some preconditions: During digging, he wants complete freedom in the region. In addition, he is requesting the opportunity to speak with anyone in the area who claims to know something about these mass graves....We have naturally accepted all of these demands. In fact, we have said that we are prepared to meet any needs that his delegation may have while in Turkey. We suggested that March would be a good time, as the weather would be perfect. Now we are waiting for the confirmation that they will in fact come."

Professor Halacoglu noted that if the mass grave in question does in fact turn out to hold the bodies of Armenians and/or Suryanis, he will be prepared to apologize in a public press conference, but if not, he is expecting that Professor Gaunt will apologize.

New Essay By Taner Ackam

Printed in Radikal (Turkey) January 24, 2007

I am a Turk. Hrant was an Armenian. I write for Agos. He was Agos. Hrant, Agos's Turkish writers, and Agos itself risked everything for a cause: to cease the hostility between Turks and Armenians; to bring the resentment and hatred to an end. We wanted each group, each nationality, to live together on the common ground of mutual respect. Hrant and Agos were a single flower blooming on the barren plains of Turkey. That flower was destroyed, torn from the ground. Everyone says "The bullet fired at Hrant hit Turkey." That's true, but we need to ask ourselves in complete and transparent honesty: Who made the target for that bullet? Who targeted Hrant so the bullet would find its mark? Who held him fast so the shot wasn't wasted? Hrant wasn't killed by a lone 17-year-old. He was murdered by those who made him a target and held him in place. Nor was he killed by a single bullet. It was the targeting, month by month, that murdered him.

"I'm afraid," he said on January 5, "I'm very afraid, Taner. The attacks on me and on Agos are very systematic. They called me to the Governor's office, where they started making threats. They said, 'We'll make you pay for everything you've been doing.' All the attacks began after I was threatened." "2007 is going to be a bad year, Taner," he continued. "They're not going to ease off. We've been made into a horrible target. Between the press, the politicians, and the lawyers, they've created this atmosphere that's so poisonous, they've made us such an obscenity, that we've become sitting ducks. "They've opened up hunting season, Taner, and they've got us right where they want us." Hrant wasn't killed by a 17-year-old. He was murdered by those who portrayed him as an enemy of Turkey, every single day in the press, to that 17-year-old. He was murdered by those who dragged him to the doors of the courthouse under Article 301. He was murdered by those who aimed Article 301 during their open season on intellectuals, and by those who didn't have the courage to change Article 301. Hrant was murdered by those who called him to the Governor's office and then threatened him instead of protecting him. There's no point in shedding crocodile tears. Let us bow our heads and look at our hands. Let us ponder how we will clean off the blood. You organs of the press who have expressed shock over Hrant's death, go read your back issues, look at what you wrote about Hrant. You will see the murderer there. You, who used 301 as a weapon to hunt intellectuals, see what you wrote about 301, look at the court decisions. You will see the murderer there. Dear government officials, spare us your crocodile tears. Tell us what you plan to do to the Lieutenant Governor who called Hrant into his office and, together with an official from the National Intelligence Bureau, proceeded to threaten him. What do you intend to do to them? Hrant was portrayed as "the Armenian who insulted Turkishness." For this, he was murdered. He was murdered because he said, "Turkey must confront its history." The hands that pulled the trigger – or caused it to be pulled – in 2007 are the same hands that shot all the Hrants in 1915, the same hands that left all those Armenians to choke in the desert. Hrant's killers are sending us a message. They're saying "Yes! We were behind 1915 and we'll do it again in 2007!" Hrant's murderers believe they killed in the name of Turkishness, just like those who killed all the Hrants in 1915. For them, Turkishness is about committing murder. It means setting someone up as the enemy and then targeting that person for destruction. Quite the contrary, the murderers are a black stain upon the brow of Turkishness. It is they who have demeaned Turkish identity. For this reason, we have stood up and we have decided to take Turkishness out of the assassins' hands and we have shouted out, "We are all Hrant! We are all Armenian!" We are the resounding cry of Turkishness and Turkey. All of us – Turks, Kurds, Alevites, secularists, and Muslims alike – shout out on behalf of everyone who wants to take Turkishness away from these murderers. Turkishness is a beautiful thing that should be respected instead of left in the hands of murderers; so is Armenianness. We can feel proud to be Turkish only if we can acknowledge the murderer for who he is. That is what we are doing today. By declaring, "We are all Armenians," we know that we honor Turkishness; by identifying the true murderer, we create a Turkishness worth claiming. Today we declare to the world that murder has nothing to do with Turkishness or Turkey. We are not going to leave Turkishness in the hands of murderers. We will not allow Turkishness to be stained by hate crimes towards Armenians. Either Turkishness belongs to the murderers, or it belongs to us. Turks cry out that the person who killed Hrant is a murderer. In the wake of his death, Turkishness affirms that we are all Armenians.

This, I say, is what we also need to do for 1915.

If we can affirm that a real Turk is someone who can distance Turkishness from the murder of Hrant Dink, then we ought to be able to do the same thing for the events around 1915. Those who gather in a protective circle around Hrant's murderer are the same people who protected the murderers of 1915. Those who honored Talaat, Bahaettin Sakir and Dr. Nazim yesterday are doing the same for Hrant's murderer today. If we can come out and declare Hrant's murder a "shameful act," then we should be able to state the same, as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did, about the acts that occurred in 1915. Today, hundreds of thousands of us condemn this murder by declaring "We are all Armenian." In 1915, Turks, Kurds, Moslems and Alevites did the same. We have to choose, not only for today but for yesterday as well. Whose side are we on? Which "Turkishness" are we defending, the one that defends the murderers or the one that condemns the murderous acts? Do we stand with Kemal, the Mayor of Bogazliyan, who annihilated Armenians in 1915, or with Abdullahzade Mehmet Efendi, the Mufti of Bogazliyan, who bore witness against that mayor at the trial that lead to his execution, stating "I fear the wrath of God"? Are we going to represent the "Turkishness" that defended the crimes of Talat, Enver, Bahaettin Sakir, Doctor Nazim, and Governor Resit of Diyarbakir? Or will we oppose them in the name of a Turkishness that condemns such horror? We need to know that in 1915 we had Mazhar, the governor of Ankara; Celal, the governor of Halep; Resit, the governor of Kastamonu; Cemal, the lieutenant governor of Yozgat; Ali Faik, the mayor of Kutahya; and Ali Fuat, the mayor of Der-Zor. And we had soldiers and army commanders in 1915, men we can embrace with respect, for opposing what happened: Vehip Pasha, Commander of the Third Army; Avni Pasha, Commander of the Trabzon garrison; Colonel Vasfi; and Salim, Major Commandant of the Yozgat post. Trabzon has its share of murderers like Ogun Samast in 2007 and Governor Cemal Azmi and Unionist "Yenibahceli" Nail in 1915. But those who opposed the crimes of 1915 and didn't hesitate to identify the murderers in court included many citizens of Trabzon: Nuri, Chief of Police; businessman, Ahmet Ali Bey; Customs Inspector Nesim Bey, and parliamentarian Hafiz Mehmet Emin Bey, who testified, "I saw with my own eyes that the Armenians were loaded onto boats and taken out and drowned, but I couldn't do anything to stop it." These are just a few of the dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people who opposed the horrible acts committed. We, Turks and Turkey, have a choice to make. We will affirm either the Turkishness of murderers past and present, or the Turkishness of those who cry out today, "We are all Armenian!" and who yesterday declared, "We will not let our hands be stained with blood." The whole world looks upon us with respect because they see us draw a line between Turkishness and barbarism. Today we are building a wall between murderers and Turkishness; we are Turks who know how to point the finger at a murderer. We must show the same courage in regard to the events of 1915. Hrant wanted us to. When he said, "I love Turks and Turkey, and I consider it a privilege to be living amongst Turks," that's what he was asking for. We need to acknowledge the murderers of the Hrants of 1915, and we need to draw a line between them and Turkishness. If we are going to own up to this murder in 2007 then we need to do the same for those of 1915. That's what confronting one's history is about. Today, by saying to Hrant's murderer, "You don't represent me as a Turk: you are simply a murderer," we have begun the process of confronting and acknowledging our history. We must do the same with the murderers of 1915 by drawing a line between their acts and our Turkishness. We must condemn these murderers as having smeared our brows with the dark stain of their crimes. Then, and only then, can we Turks go about the world with our heads held high. I cry out in the name of Turkishness. I cry out as a Turk, as a friend who lost Hrant, my beloved Armenian brother. Let's take back Turkishness from the murderous hands of those who wish to smear us with their dark deeds. Let's shout in one voice, "WE ARE ALL HRANT! WE ARE ALL ARMENIANS!"

STAND HOLDS ANTI-GENOCIDE CONFERENCE ON DARFUR

From February 2-4 STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition, held its Western Region Conference at the University of California, Berkeley with over 160 attendees. The conference was a huge success, given the fact that it was organized strictly by students for students in the name of a cause; to stop genocide. A fellow AYF member and I attended this extraordinary event on behalf of our respective STAND chapters.

The issue at hand was the genocide currently taking place in Darfur, and the message was how to act. The weekend was full of lectures and workshops, and was concluded with a successful die-in. The topics discussed were current Darfur legislation, how to initiate and advance legislation, how to lobby congress, successful media tactics, as well as the current situation on the ground in Darfur to name a few.

STAND has truly been an amazing student movement of our time, with chapters currently located in over 15 countries. What started in Goergetown University found its way across to numerous universities, colleges, and high schools. STAND has taken a truly grassroots model. There is a STAND National who is there only to provide resources and help to chapters. Chapters are the ones who take initiatives and formulate strategies.

STAND is currently fighting for US and international sanctions on the Khartoum Regime, as well as a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur to stop atrocities. The international response has been weak. It seems as though the world is waiting for the genocide to be completed so that it may stand up after it is all done and say, ‘never again!’

Turkey Misses its Chance with Armenia

by Vartan Oskanian (Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia)

ANKARA HAS LET a rare moment pass. Three weeks after the assassination of acclaimed Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, it appears the Turkish authorities have grasped neither the message of Hrant's life nor the significance of his death.

In the days immediately following Dink's shocking death, allegedly at the hands of a fanatic Turkish nationalist, we in Armenia and others around the world wanted to believe that the outpouring of public grief would create a crack in the Turkish wall of denial and rejection, and that efforts would be made to chip away at the conditions that made the assassination possible. We all hoped that the gravity of this slaying and the breadth of the reaction would have compelled Turkey's leaders to seize the moment and make a radical shift in the policies that sustain today's dead-end situation.

However, after those initial hints at conciliation, the message out of Ankara has already changed. Last week, according to the Turkish media, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said there can be no rapprochement with Armenians because Armenians still insist on talking about the genocide.

The prime minister is right. Armenians do insist on talking about the genocide. It's a history-changing event that ought not, indeed cannot, be forgotten. However, we also advocate a rapprochement. And one is not a precondition for the other.

Dink was an advocate of many things. Chief among them, he believed that individuals have the right to think, to talk, to explore, to debate. Dink knew that if the authorities would just allow people to reflect and reason aloud, share questions and search for answers, everything would fall into place. Eventually, through public and private discourse, Turks would arrive at genocide recognition themselves.

Equally, he also believed that there must be dialogue between peoples, between nations — especially between his two peoples, the Armenians and the Turks. He himself was a one-man dialogue, carrying on both sides of the conversation, trying to make one side's needs and fears audible to the other.

Unfortunately, Turkey's policy of keeping the Armenian-Turkish border closed has resulted in a reinforcement of animosities. Dink was one of many Armenian and Turkish intellectuals who understood that there needs to be free movement of people and ideas in order to achieve reconciliation among neighbors. But Turkey insists on maintaining the last closed border in Europe as a tool to exert pressure on Armenia, to make its foreign policy more pliant, to punish Armenians for defending their rights and not renouncing their past. Armenia, on the other hand, has no preconditions to normalizing relations.

This hermetically closed border combined with a law that prevents Turkey from exploring its own history and memory (by criminalizing truth-seekers such as Dink) have created a world in which Turks can't know their past and can't forge their future. They can neither explore old memories nor replace them with new ones.

Three weeks ago, our grief was mixed with hope. Today, Turkish authorities continue to defend Article 301, the notorious "insulting Turkishness" statute used to prosecute even novelists who depict characters questioning Ankara's official line on the genocide. And there is no mention at all of the continuing damage caused by a closed border.

If Turkey can't seize the moment, it should not be surprised when others do. Last week, a resolution was introduced in the U.S. Congress to affirm the U.S. record on the Armenian genocide.

The Turks will say such a resolution is not needed. They will say that they've called for a joint Armenian-Turkish historical commission to discuss the genocide, and they don't need third parties. But recognition of the Armenian genocide is no longer a historical issue in Turkey, it's a political one. Dink would wonder how "on the one hand, they call for dialogue with Armenia and Armenians, on the other hand they want to condemn or neutralize their own citizen who is working for dialogue."

Dink was courageous but not naive. Still, he could not have predicted this kind of "neutralization." The brutality of his killing serves several political ends. First, it makes Turkey less interesting for Europe, which is exactly what some in the Turkish establishment want. Second, it may scare away Armenians and other minorities in Turkey from pursuing their civil and human rights. Third, it can frighten into silence those bold Turks who are beginning to explore these complicated, sensitive subjects in earnest.

I prefer to think that more noble political ideals will be served. Hrant Dink will remain an inspiration for Armenians who share his vision of understanding and harmony among peoples and for Turks who share his dream of living in peace with neighbors and with history.

Football chants in the wake of Hrant's death

by Oktay Eksi, Hurriyet


Let the Prime Minister have some vision. Let him deal not only with Turkey's various troubles, but with world problems. Let him show other countries the true path in life....

These are wonderful wishes, are they not?

Clearly Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan must have felt this desire, as he left to join in the African Union summit taking place in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. He sprinkled delegates there with great words showing a "wide-scoped vision."He drew attention in to the ever-widening gap between the West and the Islamic world. He called on African leaders to support the Alliance of Civilizations project.

Interestingly though, just at the moment he was making this call for support, his own country, Turkey, was under the siege of those who would like to divide our nation into enemy camps, polarized by their hatred and intolerance for eachother.

According to news this week, the usual chants heard at football games were not enough for the fans who came to watch Trabzonspor play Kayserispor over the weekend. The rally leaders at the match, whose job is to yell directive chants over their megaphones, took up the well-known chant of "Those who don't stand up are Fenerbahce fans!" and turned it instead into "Those who don't stand up are Armenians!"

It is clear that the intent of these chants was not to "provoke" but to outright "insult."

Ok, so you might respond to this by saying "What, you think that's something? There are usually such insults raining down on those stadium seats that you could never repeat them at your home or to your children!"

But I would point out that one of the peculiar attributes of those stadium chants is that they are of the variety that can be forgotten and left behind at the stands of the stadium. But is this "Armenian" chant really of that variety?

Next we learn that even more worrisome things took place at football matches in Adana and Malatya, also this weekend.

So let's say that the reactions we saw at the Adana match were directly in response to the banners at Hrant Dink's funeral which read "We are all Hrant Dink" and "We are all Armenian," which is why Adana fans unfurled banners reading "We are all Mustafa Kemal" and "We are all Turkish!"

But what can we say about the Malatya match? At this match, which was between Malatyaspor and Elazigspor, there were reportedly around 400 Elazigspor fans chanting "Armenian Malatya!" before the game. (This chant being of course a reference to the fact that Hrant Dink was born in Malatya.) They they opened up banners reading "We are neither Armenian nor from Malatya. We are from Elazig. We are Turkey lovers!"

You can play football at a match, but you can't-or shouldn't-play with peoples' patriotism. Because playing with patriotism means playing with fire. And the types of people who fill football stadium stands anyway are the types very open to provocation.

To be clear about it, we are being pulled towards exactly the sort of backdrop desired by those who would have the people of our country turn on eachother. We are trying hard to misunderstand eachother. For example, we are thrilled when Germans protesting the burning down by racists of a Turkish family's house in the German city of Solingen hit the streets in protest carrying signs saying "We are all Turkish," but it is another story altogether when we do the same things after Hrant Dink's death. We are pushing our society towards polarization. And in doing so, we are harming our nation.

To wit, though it's wonderful that the Prime Minister is looking for solutions in Africa, doesn't he also need to sweep his own front door step right about now?

LA Times Editorial: New Hope for Genocide Resolution

LAST WEEK, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) engaged in what has become a biannual congressional ritual: Introducing a nonbinding resolution instructing the president of the United States to call Turkey's Ottoman-era slaughter of Armenians a genocide. Unlike in years past, however, this time the symbolic but important legislation actually has a legitimate chance at passage.

Two recent developments have created momentum. First, the Democratic Party, which has historically been more sympathetic to the resolution, now controls Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) in particular has taken a keen interest in bringing the matter to a vote. Second, a 17-year-old gunman last month executed in cold blood the respected Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on a crowded Istanbul street.

The slaying of Dink, who had been prosecuted for acknowledging the genocide, has sent a collective shiver down Turkey's spine, triggering street demonstrations and renewed calls for the government to change its policy. It is still a crime in Turkey to speak the truth about a period of history whose accepted worldwide interpretation Ankara still denies.

Schiff's resolution merely calls on the president to ensure that U.S. foreign policy "reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity" regarding the genocide and that he use the G-word during his annual message commemorating the National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man on April 24, the date in 1915 when Turkey rounded up 250 Armenian intellectuals to be slaughtered. That the resolution is so mild makes the White House's opposition all the more vexing.

Even though President Bush made a campaign promise in 2000 to use the word "genocide," his flip-flop is neither surprising nor mysterious — Ankara has considerable diplomatic influence, and Turkey is too valuable an ally to alienate with congressional resolutions. Yet the U.S. is at its best when it chooses truth over expedience, especially in matters as grave as genocide. It's hard to say "never again" convincingly if you're too afraid to speak bluntly about what you aim to prevent.

TIME Magazine Adopts New Policy on Armenian Genocide

The Feb. 12, 2007 issue of the European edition of Time magazine -available in newsstands throughout Europe as of Feb. 2nd -- carries a full-page factual announcement on the Armenian Genocide, along with a complimentary DVD, in English and French, which contains a compelling 52-minute documentary on the Armenian Genocide by French director Laurence Jourdan.

The DVD also includes a 46-minute interview with Dr. Yves Ternon, a leading expert on the Armenian Genocide.

Both the DVD and the full-page ad were provided free of charge by Time
Europe (circulation 550,000) after realizing that its staff, without proper
review, had inserted in the June 6, 2005 issue of Time Europe a Turkish DVD as a paid advertisement under the guise of promoting tourism to Turkey.

The Turkish DVD, paid for by the Ankara Chamber of Commerce, was a deceitful attempt to spread malicious lies and denialist propaganda on the Armenian Genocide.

To correct this error, Time (Europe) published, in its October 17, 2005
issue, a critical page-long letter to the editor jointly signed by the
following five French organizations: Memoire 2000, the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France (CCAF), Comite de Defense de la Cause Armenienne (CDCA) -- ANC France, J'Accuse, and the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples (MRAP).

In an Editor's note appended to the letter, Time apologized for disseminating the Turkish DVD.

Subsequently, Michael Elliott, the Editor of Time International, issued the following public statement: "Please be advised that, in common with other leading news organizations, it is Time's policy and practice to refer to the Armenian genocide as a historical fact. Accordingly, I will be informing our correspondents and editors that the term 'Armenian genocide' should be used without qualification.".

The Turkish attempt to distort the facts of the Armenian Genocide, supported by considerable financial resources, was properly countered as a result of these organizations' close cooperation
with Time which placed journalistic ethics above all other considerations.