IPen

Keeping the Eye on the Ball, not Emanuel

2008-11-07T18:45:00.000-08:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff—the first major appointment by President-elect Barack Obama—did not fare well with many Armenian-Americans who supported the Illinois Senator’s bid for presidency. While the Armenian-Americans who overwhelmingly voted for Obama showed signs of unease, those who supported the McCain-Palin ticket were quick to exclaim, I told you so!

The concerns of Armenian-Americans are understandable. Beginning with his days in the Clinton Administration through his years in Congress, Emanuel’s support has been mixed. It appears—if we are to take Robert Novak’s word for it—Emanuel opposed Clinton Administration affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. And yet, in his first term in Congress in 2003, he cosponsored Armenian Genocide legislation (H.Res.193) and urged President Bush in 2003, 2004 and 2005 to properly characterize the events from 1915-1923 as genocide.

Back then, Emanuel wasn’t afraid to question U.S. assistance to Turkey. In fact, in February 2003, when Congress was considering a $24 billion aid package to Turkey in return for allowing U.S. troops to open up a northern front to battle Iraqi insurgents, Emanuel was positively poetic in listing the myriad of domestic uses for those funds—from “no child left behind programs,” to college tuition assistance. Turkey eventually blocked U.S. troops from setting up the northern front.

Since 2006, it appears Emanuel has gone back to his Clinton-Administration days, counseling Speaker Pelosi not to place the Armenian Genocide resolution on the House agenda—advice that Pelosi and the House leadership did not heed.

So, again, that Armenian-Americans are concerned is understandable. What is not understandable, however, is the leap that many Armenian-Americans are making—concluding that the appointment of Emanuel is proof that Obama is somehow on the road to reneging on his election pledge even before taking his oath of office.

Such thinking comes off to be a bit naive. If the criteria for appointing a presidential chief of staff were for him to agree with the President on every single issue, no one would ever serve in that post. The President will have points of agreement and disagreement with his chief of staff—and all members of his Administration, for that matter—with the final word being that of the President, himself. Not to mention the fact that it is foolhardy to think that the President’s choice of a chief of staff would be decided on a single human rights issue—however just.

Armenian-American critics of the Emanuel pick ought to keep in mind the impressive record of President-elect Obama and—perhaps even more importantly—that of vice President-elect Biden, when it comes to issues of concern to Armenian-Americans. Although their record does not guarantee their support of Genocide recognition now that they have assumed the highest office of the country, it should, at least, make one think twice before jumping to conclusions.
Concentrating on the Emanuel pick is a distraction. Regardless of who the chief of staff is, immense pressure is going to be exerted on Obama—by some Washington elites, the Turkish state and U.S.-based lobby groups working openly or silently for the Turkish government—to dissuade him from recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

Given that reality, Armenian-Americans have two clear choices. To sit on their hands, thinking that they already did their part by voting for Obama and now it is his turn to deliver, or to struggle more fiercely than ever for truth and justice, knowing well that they have in the highest office of their country, a President who understands their struggle for truth and justice—certainly more than his predecessors.

Khatchig Mouradian is a writer, translator and journalist. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He can be contacted at khatchigm@hotmail.com.

Lettre à un militant Américano-Arménien

2008-11-05T19:34:00.000-08:00

Par Khatchig Mouradian
Traduction Louise Kiffer

Dans des années à partir d'aujourd'hui, vous vous rappellerez le 4 novembre 2008
comme le jour du point final où la reconnaissance du génocide arménien a commencé dans ce pays.

Ou vous allez vous en souvenir comme encore un autre jour d'élection, où encore un autre président a été élu, mais malgré tous les espoirs, les efforts et les promesses, peu de choses ont changé.

Et ce ne sera pas le Président Barack Obama à lui tout seul qui décidera de la route à suivre.

Ce sera aussi vous.

Ne dites pas: "j'ai soutenu Barack Obama pendant les élections, j'ai fait campagne pour lui, de porte en porte et par téléphone, j'ai voté pour lui, et maintenant, c'est son tour".

"Je vous demande de croire, a dit votre Président, non seulement en ma capacité d'apporter un changement réel à Washington…Je vous demande de croire en la vôtre".

Et aujourd'hui, avant de lui demander d'apporter un changement réel, croyez en votre capacité à le faire.

Et mettez-vous au travail.

Car les ennemis de la vérité, les adversaires de la justice les maîtres du statu quo, et ceux qui sont sur la liste du personnel du déni et de la falsification vont continuer à travailler contre vous de toutes leurs forces.

Mais n'oubliez pas que la question arménienne a commencé en Turquie, et c'est là qu'elle doit être résolue. N'oubliez pas que les cendres des victimes, dispersées à travers l'Anatolie et les déserts de Syrie, ne trouveront pas la paix même dans tous les pays qui auront reconnu leurs souffrances.

Leurs âmes ne trouveront le repos que lorsque la Turquie ornera ses cités de mémoriaux pour les victimes et de statues de Siamanto et de Varoujan.

Et seulement quand les chants de Komitas résonneront de nouveau dans les villes et villages d'Anatolie.

N'oubliez pas que votre militantisme ici aux Etats-Unis n'est qu'un moyen d'exercer une pression sur l'Etat turc et d'aider à éduquer le peuple.

Ce n'est pas une fin en soi.

N'oubliez pas que même si votre Président reconnaît le génocide arménien, vous aurez encore un long chemin à parcourir.

Vous aurez encore à lutter et à éduquer. Vous aurez encore des millions de cœurs et d'esprits à convaincre; les cœurs et les esprits du peuple qui a hérité – de gré ou de force – du patrimoine d'un régime génocidaire.

Et, ce qui est le plus important, ne soyez pas découragés par les déclarations de ceux qui pensent qu'ils peuvent résoudre aujourd'hui ou demain les problèmes entre l'Etat turc et les Arméniens.

La route vers la vérité et de la justice est une longue route.

Elle n'a pas commencé avec vous. Et ne finira pas forcément de votre temps.

Mais elle exige sûrement votre dévouement.

Donc, relevez vos manches et mettez-vous au travail.

Si vous luttez incessamment, vos efforts porteront leurs fruits: votre Président, vos représentants et vos concitoyens et amis joindront leurs mains aux vôtres.

Et quand vous aurez réussi à apporter un changement dans votre pays, rappelez-vous que votre génération n'est pas la seule victorieuse.

Cette victoire appartient à tous les survivants du génocide, autant qu'à leurs descendants, qui ont continué à croire en la vérité et la justice.

Aussi, quand votre militantisme finalement rapportera la reconnaissance, nous aimerions tous voir dans ce pays, avant les feux d'artifice et les célébrations, allumer un cierge à la mémoire de ces victimes et des survivants.

Et n'oubliez jamais que vous n'aurez pas honoré les victimes de Turquie de 1915, si vous n'avez pas lutté pour mettre fin aux génocides partout et en tous les temps.

C'est maintenant – plus que jamais auparavant – qu'il est temps pour vous d'effectuer un changement.

Et, oui, vous le pouvez.

4 novembre 2008
Boston, Mass.

Khatchig Mouradian est écrivain, traducteur et journaliste. Il est rédacteur en chef d'Armenian Weekly. On peut le contacter à: khatchigm@hotmail.com

Letter to an Armenian-American Activist

2008-11-05T05:13:00.000-08:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

Nov. 4, 2008
Boston, Mass.

Years from now, you will remember Nov. 4, 2008 as the day on which the final dash to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide began in this country.

Or you will remember it as yet another election day, when yet another president was elected, but despite all hopes, efforts and promises, little changed.

And it won’t be President Barack Obama alone who will determine the road taken.

It will also be you.

Do not say, I supported Barack Obama during the elections, I canvassed for him, I made phone calls, I knocked on doors, I voted for him, and now, it is his turn.

“I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change to Washington... I’m asking you to believe in yours,” said your President.

And today, before asking him to bring about real change, believe in your ability to do so.

And get to work.

Because the enemies of truth, the adversaries of justice, the masters of the status quo, and those who are on the payroll of denial and falsification will continue working against you in full-force.

But do not forget that the Armenian issue started in Turkey, and that’s where it will be resolved.

Do not forget that the ashes of the victims, scattered across Anatolia and the deserts of Syria, will not find peace even if all countries recognize their suffering.

Their souls will rest only when Turkey itself recognizes the genocide.

Their souls will rest only when Turkey adorns its cities with memorials for the victims and with statues of Siamanto and Varoujan.

And only when the songs of Komitas echo again in the cities and villages of Anatolia.

Do not forget that all your activism here in the U.S. is just a means to exert pressure on the Turkish state and help educate the public.

It is not an end in itself.

Do not forget that, even when your President acknowledges the Armenian Genocide, you will still have a long way to go.

You will still have to struggle and educate. You will still have millions of hearts and minds to win over; the hearts and minds of the people who inherited—willingly or not—the legacy of a genocidal regime.

And, most importantly, do not be discouraged by the pronouncements of those who think they can resolve today or tomorrow the problems between the Turkish state and the Armenians.

The road to truth and justice is a long one.

It did not start with you. And it will not necessarily end in your day.

But it sure requires your dedication.

So roll up your sleeves and get to work.

If you struggle tirelessly, your efforts will bear fruit: Your President, your representatives and your fellow citizens will join hands with you.

And when you succeed in bringing about change in your country, remember that you generation is not the sole victor.

That victory belongs to all the survivors of the Genocide as well as their descendents, who continued to believe in truth and justice.

So when your activism finally brings about the recognition we all would like to see in this country, before the fireworks and celebrations, light a candle in memory of those victims and survivors.

And never forget that you will not have honored the victims of Turkey in 1915, if you do not struggle to end genocides everywhere and at all times.

Now—more than ever before—is your time to effect change.

And, yes, you can.

Khatchig Mouradian is a writer, translator and journalist. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He can be contacted at khatchigm@hotmail.com.

An Interview with Nicholas D. Kristof

2008-04-05T06:17:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
Volume 74, No. 13
April 5, 2008

NEW YORK (A.W.)—Nicholas Kristof has been an Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times since November 2001. In his weekly columns, he often tackles issues of human rights abuses and genocide, and has been instrumental in creating awareness on the situation in Darfur.

A two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, he has lived on four continents, reported on six, and traveled to 140 countries. (He is at least a two-time visitor to every member of the Axis of Evil.)

Nicholas Donabet Kristof is the son of Ladis Kristof, a Transylvanian-born Armenian who immigrated to the United States after World War II.

In this interview, conducted in his office at the New York Times on March 28, we talk about the genocide in Darfur.

***

Khatchig Mouradian—You’ve been covering the genocide in Darfur for four years now. What has changed over this time in both public awareness and the situation on the ground?

Nicholas Kristof—There’s certainly more attention to Darfur now. And it really is heartening, for example, how many university students all across the country have been willing to campaign for Darfur. So in my more hopeful moments, I think about the hundreds of thousands of college students who are protesting on behalf of people of a different religion, different skin color, who they will never meet, and I think, “Wow, we are really making some progress.”

But then at the end of the day, on the ground in Darfur, the situation is as messy now as it was four years ago. If you had told me four years ago when I first went there that in 2008, people would know what Darfur is, they would know what is going on there, that the president would have called it “genocide,” I would have been surprised. But if you told me that people would know what’s going on and yet still we wouldn’t do anything, then I would have been even more stunned and depressed.

K.M.—In the past, governments were careful not to invoke the term “genocide” because then they would have to act. Now, President Bush used the word when referring to Darfur, but nothing happened. Has the word “genocide” lost its meaning?

N.K.—I don’t think it ever really had a lot of meaning to inspire action. However, it does make people feel guilty. The reason you do have a lot of people protesting on behalf of Darfur is the word “genocide.” If you use the word “ethnic cleansing,” I don’t think it gets people so upset.

Look at how in the Congo the death toll has been much greater, but it’s not really a case of genocide; it’s a messy difficult case of rival militias and that has attracted much less attention than Darfur. What has made a difference is that in Darfur the death toll is smaller, but it is genocide. So I do think that genocide as a reality and as a term does make a difference—but just not nearly enough.

K.M.—In your columns, you’ve mentioned that you’ve received emails from people saying, Yes, the situation in Darfur is bad, but we have other priorities. How do you feel about this kind of reaction, be it from ordinary people or government officials?

N.K.—I think that one of the basic mistakes that Western governments make is that while they think that it’s unfortunate what is happening in Darfur, that there are a lot of unfortunate things going on in a lot of places around the world. And Darfur is their number 38th priority.

In fact, I think it’s one of the lessons of history that over time genocide really does rise to the very top of the priority list. The Armenian genocide is a perfect example of that. When it was going on, the Wilson administration certainly thought that it was unfortunate; they didn’t want Armenians killed, but they had huge challenges with Europe, with the Ottoman Empire, and so it just never rose very high on the priority list. The same is true with the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Bosnia. Yet, each of those has had a staying power, a resonance throughout history precisely because it was genocide. I think that the mistake that the administration has made, the State Department has made, and a lot of us in the media have made is that we don’t appreciate that there really is something different about a government choosing a people based on race, color, religion, or whatever, and deciding to kill them.

K.M.—Do you think there will be any drastic changes in the U.S. policy on Darfur when there’s a new president in the Oval Office next year?

N.K.—There is some reason to believe that the next president will be modestly more active on Darfur. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both been very active on the issue. John McCain had been earlier on; he has slowed down a little bit on Darfur more recently. But all of them have been, at one time or the other, real leaders on it. So yes, there is hope that if they were in the White House, they would be more active on it.

But at the end of the day, I think that one of the things we see from history is that the president is never going to really lead in a case of genocide because there tends not to be a national interest involved, and there tends to be a lot of uncertainty about the right thing to do, and there are a lot of other priorities. When there has been some kind of response, it has been because you just had a lot of Americans shaming their president to act. Kosovo is a good example of that. There, we had the Clinton administration that really didn’t want to do very much, but they had just been tormented over a combination of Rwanda and Bosnia and, finally, they felt they had to do something and they did the right thing. Ultimately, I think it is going to be the same in the case of Darfur. The shaming of the U.S., Europe, China is going to actually make a difference.

K.M.—So you believe that the movement to change the situation is going to be from the bottom-up…

N.K.—It would be great if there were more change at the top, but the reality is that Mia Farrow has done more good for the people of Darfur diplomatically than Condi Rice has. And to the extent that China is now paying attention to Darfur, and is being somewhat helpful, that’s really because of Mia Farrow, not because of Condi Rice.

That said, I hope that we’re going to see more rigorous action by government officials, and Sarcozy, I think, is going to be more helpful in Chad especially. But fundamentally, political leaders are going to be reactive rather than proactive. So it’s going to be the grassroots activists who are going to be the ones bringing about that change, whether it’s in our government or in the Chinese government.

K.M.—What are your thoughts about the way Muslim countries have been reacting to the crisis in Darfur? They point out the double standards of the U.S., but they also uphold similar double standards by speaking about human rights violations in Israel and the Palestinian territories, while ignoring the genocide in Darfur.

N.K.—Everybody has double standards and we always tend to be more shocked about everybody else’s double standards. Look at Zimbabwe, for example. The world was horrified when you had white Rhodesians doing terrible things to blacks there, but when it’s Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, then it tends to be more accepted by everybody. Likewise, Sudan can get away with doing things to its own people that no outsider could get away with.

I do think that there have been double standards in the Egyptian news media, in particular. I really had hoped that the Egyptian news media, because it’s so important in the region, could have done more with Darfur. Instead, there is this reflexive sense that those Yankee imperialists went after Iraqi oil and neutralized Iraq on behalf of Israel and now they’re going to do the same thing to Sudan. I think that’s very unfortunate, but, I must say, we suffer from double standards all the time as well.

K.M.—And U.S. foreign policy in recent years has aggravated the situation…

N.K.—Absolutely. I think that our Middle Eastern policy—the Arab-Israeli conflict and Iraq—has left us in a situation where everything we do is viewed through an incredible prism of suspicion. That makes it very difficult for us to do anything about an Arab country, especially an Arab country with oil. This is one reason why it would be so helpful if we worked more with European countries and Muslim countries. If Egypt, the Arab League, or other Muslim countries outside the Arab world were to be more concerned about Muslims being slaughtered in Darfur, that would be of huge help.

K.M.—How does this affect you on a personal level? Isn’t it very frustrating to see how slowly things change—if they ever do?

N.K.—Absolutely. And the most frustrating is the difficulty translating from concern to actually any kind of positive action. I find that incredibly frustrating. I’m quite worried that the next issue is going to be the North-South war in Sudan. And Darfur might just be remembered as the prologue to something much bloodier…

One of the lessons that we should have learned is that you can intervene much more easily early on in a conflict. Once Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall, then it’s impossible to put him back together again. Right now, everybody is watching south Sudan fall off the ledge. We can still do something, but a year from now it may be utterly too late.

K.M.—What do you usually tell people who ask what they can do to help?

N.K.—Some of the websites that I recommend people to go to are Save Darfur (www.Save Darfur.org), the Genocide Intervention Network (www.genocide intervention.net) and Dream for Darfur (www.dreamfordarfur.org).

I do think that the Armenian community has some special responsibility to lead the way. One of the ways of memorializing the Armenian genocide should be to prevent the next genocide from happening…

K.M.—Just like the role the Jewish community is playing…

N.K.—Exactly. I think those websites are a good place to start, and some combination of calling the White House and writing member of Congress. There’s a website called Darfurscores.org that shows how each member of Congress has done. I think letters to other governments are helpful, too.

K.M.—What about the humanitarian aspect of all this?

N.K.—Early on, when people asked me what they could do to help, I would point them to specific humanitarian organizations like Doctors Without Borders (www.doctorswithoutborders.org). I think they do great work and if one donates to them, that’s not money wasted at all.

But for four years now I’ve been going and I’ve seen doctors bandage up kids with bullet wounds. That can keep on going for 20 years. So at some point, you begin to think that the real response is not a lot more bandages and more surgeons, but to do something to actually stop the killing. And so for that reason, now when people ask, I tend to emphasize the advocacy organizations.

The Politics of Official Apologies

2008-03-22T07:38:00.000-07:00

An Interview with Melissa Nobles
By Khatchig Mouradian and Melissa Nobles

ZNet
March, 22 2008

Melissa Nobles is Associate Professor of Political Science at MIT. She holds a BA in history from Brown University and an MA and PhD in political science from Yale University. Her research interests include retrospective justice and the comparative study of racial and ethnic politics. She is the author of Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern Politics (Stanford University Press, 2000) and The Politics of Official Apologies (Cambridge University Press, 2008).

In this interview, conducted in her office at MIT on March 11, we discuss why and how governments apologize—or do not apologize—for crimes committed in their country in the past and what significance apology—or the absence of it—can have on the descendents of the victims and the perpetrators.

Khatchig Mouradian—How did you become interested in the politics of official apologies?

Melissa Nobles—I became interested when, in 1998, I read an article in the New York Times about the Canadian government’s apology to indigenous Canadians. I thought that was interesting and unusual, because governments don’t usually apologize. Then I became aware of the Turkish government’s refusal to apologize for the Armenian genocide. That also interested me. I knew that the U.S. government had apologized to Japanese-Americans for their internment during WWII, but also realized that the U.S. had not apologized to Native Americans or to African-Americans for their experiences. So my interest was both in cases where governments did apologize and where governments did not apologize.

K.M.—In the book, you make a distinction between apology offered by governments and ones offered by heads of state. Why is this distinction important?

M.N.—It is important because government apologies typically require more actors and tend to be the result of more deliberation. The parliament, commissions and historians are involved, so more people are weighing in and it’s more of a collective decision. Moreover, typically government apologies have been accompanied by reparations. Examples of such apologies and reparations are the German government’s apology and ongoing reparations to surviving Jews after WWII and the state of Israel, and U.S. President Ronald Reagan providing $20,000 to surviving Japanese-Americans affected by the internment.

Apologies that come from heads of state are important, of course, because the person giving them is either the executive or government official, but they are not necessarily the result of deliberation, so they are more unpredictable and don’t usually come with any kind of compensation. They tend to be more fleeting. I thought that’s the distinction that should be taken into account.

K.M.—Speaking of reparations, in the book you write, “For vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, moral appeals are often central to political argument and action. … But at the same time, group members also express skepticism about the ultimate worth of moral appeals because although they may be essential, they are infrequently followed by action.” Do you feel that action is necessary for apologies to have meaning?

M.N.—I do. Note that action can be broadly or narrowly defined. We might think about action as an apology that marks the beginnings of a government and citizenry talking more seriously about their own history. Action can be something not regulated by the state or there may be a commission that recommends compensation. But what is the least desirable is an apology that is just said and is followed by nothing—no discussion, or any kind of deliberation or compensation—because then, it falls flat. Action need not be synonymous with reparations as such, but it needs to be something more than a mere utterance, which, once said, dies.

K.M.—Have there been cases where an official apology has not been followed by any concrete steps—a sort of “I apologize, now let’s go home”? You mention in the book how some governments have refrained from apologizing mainly because of what might come next…

M.N.—In general, the “let’s go home” apologies have been given by heads of state. I haven’t found too many cases of governments giving apologies that haven’t been followed by something. An example would be what’s going on now in Australia, where there’s resistance at least to doing something that would be directly tied to the apology. At the same time they’re saying, We are going to change Aboriginal policy-making, we’re going to take action, but we’re not going to give money to the specific victims of this particular government policy [of forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their parent’s care].

Governments are reluctant to apologize precisely because of the concern that there are going to be demands for money. But governments have more power; they decide what they’re going to do. So while there is a tension, I don’t think it’s a tension that’s insurmountable. The issue is framed by political elites. They can decide to give nothing and they often times make this decision.

K.M.—Isn’t there also some dominance relation here? After all, it’s the dominant group that is deciding what to say and what to give.

M.N.—Absolutely. This is certainly an unequal dynamic. Much of the dissatisfaction with symbolic politics is that it points up the relative powerlessness of the groups that are asking for apologies.

If you’re in power and feel that you don’t need anything from the groups that have victimized you, you would not ask for apologies. It is the less powerful that do. The less powerful groups have fewer resources and rely upon moral appeals in order to get what they want. And there’s value, of course, in bringing morality to bear. That’s just the dynamic of the world in which we live.

But you’re absolutely right, there is asymmetry here. The powerful can do as little as they want and, many times, they do nothing. They ignore them. They won’t apologize. On the other hand, the group can continue to express their dissatisfaction, and continue to demand it. The demand—just the idea that they’re being asked for it—can be discomforting to the powerful. That may be all that the side demanding apology can do.

K.M.—I want to bring democracy into the discussion. It would be easy to argue that democracy should help countries face their past, but there are some very striking examples that show that this is not the case. For example, the United States has not apologized for slavery or the genocide of the Native Americans. What are your thoughts on this?

M.N.—Democracy is the rule of the majority and there are inherent disadvantages for minority groups within democracies. (Native Americans, in this example, are less than one percent of the American population; black Americans are 12 percent). And even though democracies allow for an expression of desires and preferences, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to get what you want. It typically means that minority groups have to get the majority on board. That’s why moral appeal is sometimes what’s needed.

The majority decides whether it will pay any attention to the minority. They can choose to ignore the minority, and, as I’ve said, they oftentimes do. So what minorities have to do is try to find a way to make the majority listen. And usually appeals to history, appeals to the conscience are the peaceful ways that are used. There are violent ways, of course, but those haven’t been the avenues chosen by Native Americans or African-Americans for obvious reasons.

The hope is that public discourse within democracies will force a discussion. There’s a need for a robust debate in the public arena, which makes freedom of speech, freedom of universities and other freedoms that democracy provides so important. Without those freedoms, change definitely wouldn’t happen.

K.M.—In the context of democracy and the minorities within that democracy, do you feel that as long as there has been no apology, the power asymmetry and the domination are still there?

M.N.—Yes, it’s kind of unavoidable. Look at the situation of the Native Americans. It’s disgraceful and makes one despair a great deal. It’s our country’s history. We don’t want to talk about it, or we barely talk about it. Even when we do talk, we certainly talk about it incompletely. And more than that, I think many Americans thing that the dispossession of the Native Americans was justified in some way. They think, we certainly are not going to give anything back, we love the U.S. now and the Native American circumstance is just the unfortunate result of history. I think that some dimension of domination will always be there and seems to be unavoidable. It is also, of course, not a thing that anyone who has a conscience would celebrate. It should cause us discomfort at the very least and I think there is no real discussion in the U.S. about Native Americans because of that discomfort and the implications of taking their situation seriously.

K.M.—You have written, “Feelings of ‘nonresponsibility’ are powerful constraints against state support for apologies. Feelings of national pride, derived from certain interpretations of national history, also play a role.” What is shocking is that in each and every case that I know of and that you mention in the book, the victimizers or their descendents—the dominant group—deal the exact same way with the victim group and its demands. This issue seems to cut across civilizations.

M.N.—It is shocking. There are lots of justifications for not feeling responsible. The most obvious is the argument that “I was not personally responsible.” But, of course, that’s a pretty easy one to challenge. People aren’t responsible for what goes well in their countries, but they claim it, right? So it’s kind of selective claiming: “I like the constitution but I hate slavery.” Being part of a country requires the good and bad, but it is human nature to want to bask in the glory and then ignore the bad. Once I decide that I’m not responsible for the act, why would I apologize for it?
Once this particular position takes hold, everything else follows and makes apology impossible. So the point is to always try to deal with that issue of responsibility by telling the person, “You are not individually responsible, we get that, but somehow you are a beneficiary of, or you benefited from, the historical circumstances in which you were born in such a way that you must now think about making amends.”

The challenge is to try and get people to see that they are somehow responsible. Not that they themselves are responsible, but that somehow they should accept responsibility, even if they were not personally involved.

One thing the research has shown is that feelings of guilt are determined by whether you think you are personally responsible or not. If you recognize that your group, the group with which you are associated, was responsible and you feel guilt about it, then you’re likely to apologize.

K.M.—How can the descendants of the victimizers argue for an apology?

M.N.—Politicians make it such that the descendents are able to say, “OK, this happened in the past, apologizing is the right thing to do.” It helps to talk about the past but think about the future. So they use the term acknowledgement without necessarily assigning guilt. That’s what Australia’s Prime Minister did. He apologized to Aboriginal Australians straightforwardly. He basically said, “We acknowledge what happened and we are sorry.” But then he said, “Now we’re moving forward. The reason we are apologizing is to make a better community for Australian Aboriginal peoples.” So one approach that politicians use is not to dwell upon the past; even as they acknowledge the past, they quickly move from it. That seems to be the tactic that works best. If you dwell too much on the past, if there’s too much discussion about the past, then it becomes fertile ground for those who oppose giving the apology. The idea is to always keep looking at the big picture, and one useful big picture is the future. I think that’s the way that successful apologies are done and politicians recognize that.

K.M.—Countless massacres and crimes against humanity have been committed in the last two centuries alone. At some point, one might argue that everyone has to say sorry to everyone else. Why are some apologies more “important” than others?

M.N.—The aggrieved groups themselves must ask for it and others have to see something in it for them. In fact, not everyone is asking for apologies because there’s a certain distrust of apology. Some people ask, “What’s that apology going to do?” They think, “They don’t mean it,” or “If I have to ask for it then it’s not worth getting,” or “They are morally bankrupt and don’t even know that they should apologize,” or “Whatever they could do for me wouldn’t be worth it.” So there are reasons why some people wouldn’t even think about asking for an apology, because they think it would be somehow tainted.

Are some apologies more important than others? I don’t think there are absolute measures. But at least in politics, it seems, the ones that are considered worthy are the ones where the people who are giving it stand to gain too.

K.M.—If a crime happened in the past but continues to have great implications today and cause great distress, do you think it’s more “worthy” of being addressed? I have in mind the Native Americans, African-Americans…

M.N.—I agree with the gist of your argument. But many would argue that what happened in the U.S. happened. That we have found other ways of dealing with African-American and Native American grievances, and apology is kind of beside the point. They would say that an apology would be so polarizing that it will do more harm than good.

In general, though, I think that if any party is going to do it, it’s the Democrats, although they haven’t endorsed an apology—not even Bill Clinton.

K.M.—What do you think about gestures by ordinary people who apologize despite their government’s reluctance to do so?

M.N.—Australia is a good example of that. When former Prime Minister John Howard refused to apologize, he ended up inadvertently fostering what is known as the people’s movement. Australians themselves were signing sorry books. Some critics judged it as political theatre, but I didn’t view it that way. The Australians were telling Aboriginal Australians, “Listening to you makes me think about what happened, makes me think about you as a neighbor that I care about. The government can’t change our attitudes. We’re citizens, and we can apologize.”

It seems to me that an official apology accompanied by real, serious engagement by the population—as we’ve seen in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, yet haven’t seen here in the U.S.—makes a big difference in the quality of life in those countries.

Khatchig Mouradian is a journalist, writer and translator, based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He can be contacted at: khatchigm@hotmail.com.

From:
Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16943

Complicity with Evil: An Interview with Adam LeBor

2008-03-15T07:44:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

ZNet
March, 15 2008

Adam LeBor is an author and journalist based in Budapest, Hungary. He writes for The Times (of London), the Economist, the Jewish Chronicle and the New York Times. He is the author of six non-fiction books, including Milosevic: A Biography, City of Oranges: An Intimate History of Arabs and Jews in Jaffa and Complicity with Evil: The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide.
In this interview, conducted by phone, we talk about the role the UN played—and oftentimes failed to play—when genocide and crimes against humanity were committed.

Khatchig Mouradian—In Complicity with Evil, you call on the UN to return to its founding principles and set the agenda of the Security Council instead of following the lead of the great powers. Do you think such a drastic shift in the UN’s approach would be possible under current circumstances?
Adam LeBor—It would be difficult, that’s for sure. That’s the ideal that I think should happen. The problem with the UN is that the powers on the Security Council follow their own national interests more than the interests of the UN, but one place where there is room to maneuver is within the Secretariat. And if the Secretary General and other Secretariat officials don’t just follow the whims of the great powers but actually say, “Look, the UN is here to safeguard human rights, prevent genocide, that’s why it was founded, not to be used to pursue your national interests,” if the Secretariat kept making that point, it could, perhaps, have an effect.
This sounds very general, but let’s look at, for example, what happened in Bosnia. Many UN officials focused primarily on preserving the UN’s impartiality and also following the interests of the great powers. Those UN officials did have an effect on the ground, but it wasn’t a good effect.

K.M.—You mentioned the issue of UN impartiality. In the book you highlight the UN’s “reluctance to distinguish victim from aggressor” and “continued equal treatment of the parties” as the biggest blows to the credibility of UN peacekeeping. Can you explain?
A.L.—We saw that in Bosnia, we saw it in Rwanda, and we are still seeing it in Darfur. In Bosnia, at the Sarajevo airport, UN soldiers were shining spotlights on people who were trying to run across the airfield to get out of the besieged city, and the Serbs would fire on them. The airport was controlled by the UN, and the UN believed it had to be neutral.
You have this obsession with neutrality. You have the main UN political official, Yakushi Akashi, who refuses to authorize air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs because he believes that it would weaken Slobodan Milosevic—and the latter was needed to make a peace deal.
You see the same thing in Rwanda, where the UN, under pressure by the Clinton Administration—in what was surely one of the Administration’s most shameful moments—actually pulled out 90 percent of the troops that were there.
You see the same situation now in Darfur. Sudan is treated as an honored partner in negotiations. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meets the Sudanese president and talks about how he believes the Sudanese president is committed to ending the carnage in Darfur, and then, a few weeks later, another 12,000 people are displaced and hundreds of more people are killed. All this is because no one seems to be willing to say that the UN is not founded to give a platform of membership to regimes carrying out genocide.
There’s a mentality that we can’t get involved in what’s going on. We just have to always be these impartial arbiters. But there comes a point when impartiality means siding with the aggressor.

K.M.—How do you think this false notion of impartiality can be changed? After all, some would argue that the UN is the organization that brings all countries together and once the concept of impartiality is left open to different interpretations, member states could raise the argument that the UN is, in fact, taking sides.
A.L.—This is the great question: How can the organization protect human rights when the people carrying out the human rights abuses are members of the UN? I would argue there are means and methods by which UN member states that carry out egregious violations can be suspended or expelled—there’s a provision for that in the UN Charter. Also, the agenda can be set. Look at what’s happening now on the new Human Rights Council. We have a spectacle of countries refusing to take any action against Sudan and Zimbabwe, obsessing about what Israel is doing. Now, to be sure, there are human rights issues in Israel and Palestine, but there are also many other human rights issues going on in the world. But you have member states of these organizations focusing only on their own interests, rather than having any actual interests in human rights violations. That’s one area that needs a lot of attention.

K.M.—This is also a problem in the media. How do you feel about bringing up human rights violations elsewhere to “justify” or divert attention from other human rights abuses? Wouldn’t a universal approach to human rights help all sides?
A.L.—The media in countries often reflects their country’s interests, especially in non-democratic regimes. For example, most Arab regimes and much of the Arab media hasn’t engaged over Darfur. Some of them don’t believe it’s happening, some of them say it’s another Western plot to dismember another Arab country, same as in Iraq. You see a kind of selective judgment. But until there are absolute standards applied, it weakens the whole cause of human rights. If, for example, the Arab media is always talking about Gaza and the West Bank—and of course, I say again, there are human rights violations that need to be addressed there—but the same media never says anything about what’s happening in Darfur or refugees in the Western Sahara or the lack of human rights in most Arab countries or the fact that there’s no free press and bloggers are arrested, then it becomes very difficult to share outrage over other issues. We need less selective judgment, and clearer, absolute judgments over what’s wrong, whether or not it is convenient to look at a certain issue.

K.M.—I want to return to the issue of the Secretariat. Wouldn’t you agree that the hands of the Secretariat are tied when it comes to setting the agenda as long as members of the Security Council are not willing to make concessions?
A.L.—I think it would demand a concession by the countries on the Security Council, especially the five permanent members, to accept that Secretariat officials should have more power and should be able to set the agenda of the UN. But at the moment, it just doesn’t seem to be happening. Look at how the political establishment in the U.S., for example, views the UN. They see it as an anti-Western organization, and so why would we hand over any diplomatic power to an organization like this? We go back to the problem of selective judgment here. The General Assembly and the new Human Rights Council are refusing to engage on Zimbabwe or on Sudan but only engages on things that interest it. This actually helps the people who want to keep the UN weak. The Republicans can say, look at these people, they are not concerned about human rights, they are concerned about their own short-term politically expedient interests. So, that selective judgment does a lot of damage.

K.M.—Talk about why the UN is, as you say, “passively complicit with evil.”
A.L.—The reason I called my book “Complicity with Evil” is because it’s actually the UN’s own words. In 2000, the UN released its report on peacekeeping failures in Bosnia, Rwanda and some other places. The UN’s own words were that its continued obsession with impartiality, with not engaging while human rights abuses were going on in front of UN peacekeepers, has arguably made the organization guilty of being “complicit with evil.” And it has been. There are people in the organization that realize this and want to change it.

K.M.—What role do you see for the UN today in Darfur?
A.L.—When people talk about Darfur, especially the U.S and Britain, they say that we can’t do anything in Darfur because of Iraq. But there are many things that can be done without sending the 101st Airborne Division in. You can have serious, meaningful sanctions on the Sudanese government, on the president and the people organizing the genocide and the human rights abuses. You can have sanctions on the oil industry. You can have a more active International Criminal Court (ICC). You can see the contempt Sudan holds the UN in when one of the four people indicted by the ICC is actually promoted after the indictment and made the minister in charge of refugee affairs. You can see that a country like Sudan has no fear of the UN whatsoever, couldn’t care less what it does. The way to address that is also to start focusing on the individuals that are actually running these regimes and to seriously target them in terms of sanctions, travel bans and freezing their assets. This had quite strong effects during the Milosevic regime, when the genocide was going on in Bosnia, because people started to get nervous that they’d never get their money or be able to leave the country. They started to turn on each other and started to reach out to the ICC saying that they had information and were ready to make a deal. All this makes the regime crack.

K.M.—Do you think the U.S.’s use of the term “genocide” to describe the killings in Darfur has helped in any way?
A.L.—I thought the whole U.S. position on the use of the term “genocide” in Darfur was completely bizarre. Clearly, it is genocide. Genocide does not necessarily mean mass extermination, as it happened in the Holocaust or Rwanda. It means the intention to destroy a group. And that is exactly what is happening in Darfur in terms of the communities that are being targeted and destroyed as a group. There’s a lot of furor over the use of the word and this furor distracts from what’s going on. America says it is genocide, but then refuses to take any action to stop this genocide. The UN says it’s not a genocide, although some acts have been committed that resemble genocide. You have this, in some way, irrelevant debate over the word, while the slaughter continues.

K.M.—How do you see the future of UN peacekeeping?
A.L.—I think a lot of lessons have been learned from Rwanda, where UN troops evacuated places and left the Tutsis there to be slaughtered by the Hutus who were waiting outside the front door. And from what happened in Srebrenica, where Dutch peacekeepers literally forced Muslim men and boys into the arms of the Bosnian Serbs who then took them away and slaughtered them. I think important lessons have been learned, unfortunately at the cost of a lot of human lives and suffering.
Now, where there is a meaningful peacekeeping force, like in Congo and Liberia, it is more robust and muscular. The department of peacekeeping operations has a sub-department called Best Practices, which looks at each mission and works out how to make it work better.
But the problem is when the troops aren’t there. If you look in Darfur, there’s supposed to be 26,000 troops, but there’s only a fraction of them there. Sudan is insisting that only peacekeepers from African countries be deployed. It is doing that because African countries don’t have the experience and the logistics to mount effective peacekeeping operations. They simply don’t have the capability that Western countries have. So it’s all very clever, very convenient.
I would say that where peacekeepers are properly deployed, they are making a difference. But they need to get there.

Khatchig Mouradian is a journalist, writer and translator, based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He can be contacted at: khatchigm@hotmail.com.

From:
Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16876

An Interview with Hilmar Kaiser

2008-03-08T08:01:00.000-08:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
March 8, 2008

Hilmar Kaiser is a scholar of the Armenian genocide who is also known in scholarly circles and the Armenian community for the controversy he generates with some of his lectures and interviews. We first sat down at the editorial offices of the Aztag Daily in Beirut on Sept. 22, 2005, for a fascinating interview about the Ottoman archives and the Armenian genocide.
Kaiser received his PhD from the European University Institute in Florence, Italy. He specializes in Ottoman social and economic history as well as the Armenian genocide. He has done research in more than 60 archives worldwide, including the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul.

His published works—monographs, edited volumes and articles—include “Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians,” “At the Crossroads of Der Zor: Death Survival and Humanitarian Resistance in Aleppo, 1915-1917,” “The Baghdad Railway and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1916: A Case Study in German Resistance and Complicity,” “1915-1916 Ermeni Soykirimi Sirasinda Ermeni Mulkleri, Osmanli Hukuku ve Milliyet Politikalari,” “Le genocide armenien: negation a ‘l’allemande’” and “From Empire to Republic: The Continuities for Turkish Denial.”

In this interview, conducted in Boston in Dec. 2007, Kaiser discusses the archives and speaks about his views on Turkish scholars—both the liberals and state-sponsored genocide deniers.

Khatchig Mouradian—Let’s talk about your Turkish colleagues and how they approach the Armenian issue.

Hilmar Kaiser—When I looked in Turkey over the past year for organized “academic” treatment of the Armenian issue, I could identify at least eight centers, which are in competition with each other; and then, within the centers there is competition. What you have there is a flourishing chaos. This is also understandable because the Turkish government puts money into it. The government puts money into the project without having a right assessment, so they burn a lot of money on staff that has zero impact.

There has to be a realization in certain circles—especially at the Turkish Historical Society—that this level doesn’t suffice. Some people claim “our product is inefficient because it’s only in Turkish and no one can read it.” They should understand that it is good that no one can read it, because once it is translated, it will do more damage than anything else. Some authors areas if talking in their own bathroom.

But now within the Turkish Historical Society and among some others there is agreement that production has to meet U.S. University press standards and anything else is a total waste of time.

We agreed that we disagree, and then we had discussions about the concept of genocide, we have now discussed joint projects. It’s something else if that will happen or not, but we at least explored what can be done together, in areas where basically you wouldn’t burn the house. After two and a half years in the Turkish archives, they got used to me being in Turkey, there was no scandal, slowly they got used that I am a reality and they get more comfortable and confident about the situation.

Personally, I have no problem talking to official historians or genocide deniers because these guys have the nationalist credentials. They don’t have to prove that they’re not Armenian spies so they are very cool about it. They are very surprised that I don’t talk to the “liberals” about it, and I tell them very clearly that it is, in my view, a self-deception to think that a few Turkish scholars—regardless of how good or how bad their work is, how respectable or unrespectable they are—who represent a very small layer, a very privileged layer of Turkish society, the société, the upper one percent, will change the country.

These people teach at very few places where very few students go to and they basically dismiss a whole state university system with tens of thousands of history students. So I just ignore them. If you want to talk to people who train the teachers in Turkey, who go to countrywide universities, you have to talk to other people.

From a German perspective—I am German and it inspires me given the dialogue of the 1970s and 1980s between east and west—it was always clear that engaging the other side is inevitable and you make them part of the solution. We can’t get rid of all of those we don’t like and then start everything from the beginning, because these people will fight to the end if they have nothing to lose. Respectable scholarship has nothing to do with the name of the person who has written it—it is assessed on its own merit. So people might change and agreements might replace disagreements. Never give up too easy.

There’s a substance on which you can move on and I have been involved in it during the last few years. There are hopeless cases among historians in Turkey, of course. At one dinner, one outed himself as a fan of Adolf Hitler. In Germany, I would report him to the police and he wouldn’t leave the country for what he said. This was, at the same time, Holocaust denial, racism and a call for inter-ethnic violence. You don’t have to deal with those guys. There are clear standards. These standards are not to be compromised. But the other guys, I don’t boycott them, clearly.

K.M.—You criticize the liberal scholars. But most of the decent scholarship by Turks on the Armenian genocide is done by the liberal scholars and not the ones on the state’s payroll, am I wrong?

H.K.—You have to look at the footnotes. Every book tells you what you have done, at least what you claim to have done. Much of it is based on published resources. It shows that they are not at the cutting edge. If you want original research on a certain issue, given the low state of our knowledge because of archival issues and other issues, you have to put in the time. All these concepts about the Armenian genocide are developed on generalization of a very narrow source basis. We have developed a lot of Holy Grail items that we hear over and over again, but these are generalizations of local events that didn’t necessarily spread. There is a lot of crap that we have to throw out, and we have the documents to make that point. One has to be more humble and more relaxed about it and be careful about one’s findings.

K.M.—Talk about your relation with the head of the Turkish Historical Society Yusuf Halacoglu.

H.K.—I met him at the Istanbul conference almost two years ago. Then I visited him at the Historical Society’s conference about a year ago, where he received me in a very friendly manner. Then we had little contact and I visited him in June and in November again. Halacoglu is the only Turkish historian who has put material on the table I cannot reconcile with my current knowledge. He is an extremely smart guy, very professional. He is ahead of me in some regards.

K.M.—Why do you say that?

H.K.—He has the material on the prosecution of war criminals during the war. Meanwhile, I have obtained my own copy of the material, but there has to be academic respect—it means, he has the right to publish it first.

According to this material, people who stole money, killed etc., were punished. The list identifies the perpetrators, what they did and what their punishment was. We know, for example, that the murderers of Zohrab and Vartkes Effendi were executed by Djemal, and there were other executions. People who stole money from the Armenian population and put it in their own pocket instead of transferring it to the government got punished. We know this but we need a careful analysis of it. We have no decisive answer yet.

K.M.—But they aren’t punishing them for stealing from the Armenians, are they?

H.K.—We haven’t researched that. This element is surely part of it, but do we really fully account for it?

K.M.—How would you qualify Halacoglu’s scholarship…

H.K.—The book on the 16th century is very good…

K.M.—No, I mean his scholarship on the Armenian genocide…

H.K.—This is not so easy, you have to see who is he. He is the representative of the Turkish state. If there is a real debate between persons with intellect and command of sources, Halacoglu leads the Turkish team.

Dismissing him for past weak scholarship or political fanaticism—or whatever argument you want to bring up and you may even have something in support of your point—will not necessarily be productive. Don’t underestimate Yusuf Halacoglu. I respect him. I might disagree with him emphatically but I’m comfortable that I don’t have a fight with him at this point. The academic resources of an entire state converge on this one person. The Armenians have nobody coming even close to the shadow of him.

On the other hand, he is not antagonistic like the fascist I just mentioned. Halacoglu is interested in dialogue, the question is on what terms. He has no problem to talk with me, to talk with others…

K.M.—The way you are describing a notorious genocide denier might come as a surprise to many…

H.K.—First of all, the description of deniers as a group is false. You have people who are fully paid talking heads who have nothing to offer; they are, unfortunately, the people who write the briefs for Erdogan when he goes abroad. Then you have the kind of politically well-connected third-rate academic creatures who are only interested in escalating the situation because they can only live on escalation, because they have nothing to offer. And then you have people who have serious disagreements with you.

The way Turkish materials have been used in one recent English-language publication in this country—which is celebrated as great research—is totally unscholarly. The celebration is there because no one is able to check the sources. If that publication had been an Armenian genocide denial publication, there would have been an outcry. Same methods of misrepresentation of sources, speculation, you name it. It’s all there.

K.M.—Can you give a concrete example?

H.K.—For example, one scholar claims that the president of the Ottoman Chamber was going to Germany in March 1915 to coordinate the decision of the Armenian genocide, and he gives the source. The source says exactly the opposite. I don’t want to go now into detail because I am publishing it.

K.M.—Talk about the Ottoman archives. What has changed in the past couple of years?

H.K.—The Directorate for Demography in the Ministry of the Interior was reopened. This collection was open for some time in the 1990s and was closed for at least two years since 2005. This was a reopening, not a new opening of collections.

The opening of other files is rapid, tremendous. They have opened the Ministry of the Interior files for the Abdul-Hamidian period until the second constitutional period. This is massive.
They have also opened the files of the Paris embassy and they are opening more embassy files now. This is at a pace that has never been there.

However, there are still files—collections we spoke of in our previous interview, like the files of the so-called abandoned property commissions—that are not made available. We also don’t have possibly the most crucial files on WWI concerning the Armenians, because they were removed in 1919 from the files that were opened so far and have been put in a new collection for the purposes of the government. So this is not—as some people now claim—a cleansing of archives. This is just that certain files were carried from one office to another office in the context of administrative organization. This stuff, from what I understand, is not going to be opened soon, not because the archivists are not motivated, not because they are not interested, but simply because you have so many people and so much work. There is a lack of resources.

There is no political opposition now towards declassification and processing. What they simply don’t have is sufficient resources, which is regrettable.

K.M.—What is the significance of the embassy files regarding the Armenian issue?

H.K.—I haven’t worked with this, but, for example, the catalogs indicate that the embassy files of London, St. Petersburg, Paris provide a lot of insight into the massacres of the 1890s. Also, the embassies were spying outposts. They were spying on the Armenian diaspora communities and the spying was directed by the Ministry of the Interior through the embassies. So you find a lot of Ministry of the Interior material in embassy files and you find embassy reports to the Ministry of the Interior. This is very important because we might have lost some material—physically totally rotten—because of maintenance problems. So you might lose the draft in the Ministry of Interior file but since the letter went out to the embassy, you can have it in the embassy file, because the Paris embassy had a better storage facility. Some of these files have been very recently repatriated, which is exciting.

K.M.—You are talking about hundreds of thousands of files, and among them, thousands of files might have relevance regarding the Armenian issue. How many people are actually involved in researching these files?

H.K.—There is increasing interest among Turkish historians in Istanbul and the provinces who have not been involved in organized campaigns so far against Turkish “traitors” who say it was a genocide or against “Armenian allegations.” But what has transpired now during my talks is that the Armenians have become a topic. One scholar is publishing 16th-century tax registers from Yerevan—in Istanbul, not Yerevan. This has nothing to do with the genocide but is very important for Armenian history. We have 19th-century income tax registers, 1840s, very important again. So where we are going right now is a periodization of the Armenian cause/issue/problem, as it is called in Turkey. The people no longer mix together the Tanzimat era, Abdul-Hamid era, second constitutional period with the genocide and then the occupation period. We see now increasingly very well-respected and motivated scholars working on it not just because they want to prove or disprove something—that might be just one aspect in it—but because there is interest in the material.

From the outside, Dr. Taner Akcam was there some time ago for three weeks, and now he lectures us on the Ottoman archives, for which I’m very thankful. Then, Garabed Moumdjian was there with me in 2006 for two weeks working on the Young Turks on the ARF. He has sent shock waves through the whole establishment. Every time I think about it I’m laughing. An Armenian walked in, he spoke better Turkish than the Turks, he read Ottoman, handwritten documents like we read the New York Times, he talked to the archival staff in Arabic... The idea of the ARF, fanatic, blood-drinking killer and so on got a devastating blow. There’s no one else. He’s the only Armenian who went there possibly in decades (before, only Ara Sarafian went). Which shows that these programs, whatever they do, don’t do one thing: They don’t bring people to that point where many people had hoped they would bring them. So we’re at that point and, this year, it seems I was alone.

K.M.—There’s so much research that needs to be done in these archives. Why is the interest by scholars from outside Turkey so little?

H.K.—I was criticized by some less-informed elements in the Armenian diaspora for going to the archives because now they cannot say it’s closed anymore. Why did we push for having it open if we don’t want it open? For some people, this was obviously just political talk. I have to be very critical about this. All these donations the community put into research, obviously none of it is coming there. So when I am going there, people should not think that I am going on an Armenian ticket. If there was five percent Armenian money in it, it would be nice.

My colleagues ask me in Turkey where all these Armenians are. They feared that the moment they opened the door, a mob would raid their place. So you had basically the cavalry waiting for the Indians to attack and in four to five years one lone Indian has showed up. And so they understand that their projections of a big Armenian conspiracy is just a formulation of their own fears that has relatively little to do with reality.

When I say the archives are open, it’s limited, clear, but there certainly is no excuse not to do it. It’s a very simple thing. Crucial evidence, about whose existence we know, is not available at this time. But there is no excuse not to exhaust what they have made available, because this has to be done anyhow. If people say, Well we want to see the rest and then we’ll do something, well that is unprofessional. One has to be at the cutting edge of research. I think this kind of concept is not present.

K.M.—What do you think about Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s proposal for a joint historical commission?

H.K.—A commission would have little to do. We have gone pretty well through the Ottoman archives and not much is left on World War I. So what should a commission do? Xerox the documents a second time? That would be perfect nonsense. The cataloging of WWI files has to make rapid progress to provide an archival basis for a commission. The issue is an illustration that Erdogan does not have the best advisors when it comes to the Armenian genocide. These people develop ideas without checking first whether the pre-conditions for their own proposal exist within their own institutions.

Another matter is getting rid of such obstacles as Article 301. I cannot expect anyone to agree with me when that would mean he would be regarded as a criminal for doing so. The AKP government in Ankara has inherited a mess created by its predecessors over decades. So it is small steps for the time being, while hoping that the AKP does its homework and continues its overall positive course.

Of Grasshoppers and Men

2008-02-09T14:45:00.000-08:00

An Interview with Arundhati Roy
By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
Feb. 9, 2008

Arundhati Roy was born in 1959 in Shillong, India. She studied architecture in New Delhi, where she now lives, and has worked as a film designer, actor, and screenplay writer in India. Roy is the author of the novel The God of Small Things, (Random House/HarperPerennial) for which she received the 1997 Booker Prize. The novel has been translated into dozens of languages worldwide. She has written several non-fiction books: The Cost of Living (Random House/Modern Library), Power Politics (South End Press), War Talk (South End Press), An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire (South End Press) and Public Power in the Age of Empire (Seven Stories/Open Media).

Roy was featured in the BBC television documentary, “Dam/age,” which chronicles her work in support of the struggle against big dams in India and the contempt of court case that led to a prolonged legal case against her and eventually a one-day jail sentence in spring 2002. A collection of interviews with Arundhati Roy by David Barsamian was published as The Checkbook and the Cruise Missile (South End Press). Roy is the recipient of the 2002 Lannan Foundation Cultural Freedom Prize.

On Jan. 18, 2008, Roy delivered the Hrant Dink memorial lecture at Bosphorus University in Istanbul. In her lecture, titled “Listening to Grasshoppers: Genocide, Denial and Celebration,” Roy reflected on the legacy of Hrant Dink and dealt with the history of the “genocidal impulse,” the Armenian genocide of 1915 and the killing of Muslims in Gujarat, India in 2002.

Speaking about the slain editor of the Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos, Roy said, “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.’”

“I wonder what thoughts would have gone through my head as I walked beside his coffin,” she added. “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.”

In this interview, conducted by phone on Feb. 2, we talk about some of the issues she raised in her lecture and reflect on genocide and resistance.

Khatchig Mouradian—What was going through your head when you were writing the speech for the commemoration in Istanbul of Hrant Dink’s assassination?

Arundhati Roy—These days, we are going through a kind of psychotic convulsion in India. Genocide and its celebration are in the air. And it’s terrifying for me to watch people celebrating genocide every day. It was at a time when I was very struck by this celebration in India and the denial in Turkey that they asked me to go to Istanbul.

When I landed in Istanbul, I realized that there’s a very big difference between what Armenians, Turks and others could say outside Turkey—where everybody could be very direct about the Armenian genocide—and inside Turkey—where, Hrant Dink, for example, was trying to find a way of saying things in order to continue living. His idea was to speak out, but not to die.

In Istanbul, I spoke with people and I was very concerned not to give the impression that I flew in, made a speech, and flew out leaving everybody else in trouble. I was interested in helping to create an atmosphere where people could begin to talk about the Armenian genocide to each other. After all, that’s the project of the Armenians who are living in Turkey and trying to survive there.

At the same time, I was somebody who is involved quite deeply in issues in India and I didn’t want to be some global intellectual who flies in, makes some superficial statements and then flies out. I wanted to relate the issue to what I knew and what I fought for, and tried to push a little bit more and a little bit more. And this is not a simple thing to do.

K.M.—The story that weaves your lecture together is that of your friend, David Barsamian’s mother, Araxie Barsamian. In an interview, you say, “I think that a story is like the surface of water, and you can take whatever you want from it.” What did you take from the story of Araxie Barsamian?

A.R.—In fact, David happened to be in India just before I went to Turkey and we talked about the issue. It mattered to me that I knew him. I’m not saying that if I didn’t know him I wouldn’t have spoken, but it suddenly became something that was more personal. I was having the discussion with a friend that there are people who talk about politics that is informative and politics that is transformative. These are such silly separations because in Turkey, for example, everybody knows what happened. It’s just that there’s a silence around it and you’re not allowed to say what happened. And when you say it, it becomes transformative in itself. I made my point through the words of David’s mother instead of going and saying, “Look, that bullet that was meant to silence Hrant Dink actually made someone like myself take the trouble to go and read history. Whether I say it or I don’t say it, you and I know what happened, and if you want to maintain the silence, then people here will have to fight with that, as I will have to fight with the celebration around genocide in India.”

This is something that a novel writer does. How you say what you want to say is as important as what you want to say. By telling Araxie Barsamian’s story, the history comes alive. You could say that 1.5 million people were killed or you could say that the grasshoppers arrived in Araxie Barsamian’s village…

K.M.—You spoke about the difference between speaking about the Armenian genocide outside and inside Turkey. But in your speech, you are quite bold: You do not come off as trying to imply things rather than stating them outright. You are not trying to avoid using the term genocide…

A.R.—When I started speaking about the term “genocide,” defining it, then talking about the history of genocide and what’s happening in India today—how Indian fascists killed Muslim—I wanted to make it clear that that the genocidal impulse has cut across religions and that the same ugly, fascist rhetoric that the Turks used against the Armenians has been used by the Christians against the Indians, has been used by the Nazis against the Jews, and today, it is being used by Hindus against Muslims. Genocide is such a complex process. The genocidal impulse has never been related to just one culture or just one religion. I spoke about the Armenian genocide and its denial openly to the extent that I could without shutting down the audience.

I would like to note that in my readings, one problem I realized is that many scholars who have studied the Armenian genocide in detail—almost all of them—keep on insisting that it was the first genocide of the 20th century and, in asserting that, they deny the other genocides that took place—for example, the genocide against the Herrero people in 1904. So I was also trying to talk about the Armenian genocide without giving the impression that some victims are more worthy than others.

K.M.—How was your lecture received?

A.R.—The important thing was that it was received. It wasn’t blocked out. It wasn’t denied. People didn’t say, “Oh, here’s a person who has come here to tell us about our own past.” That’s because I wasn’t just talking about the past of Turkey. For me, that was the way of guaranteeing that my talk was received.

The biggest thing is that it was received. It was taken in and it was thought about. I saw many people in tears in the hall. And I hope that in some tiny, little way, it will change the way this subject is spoken of. I might be presuming too much…

K.M.—As you point out in your lecture, genocide and gross human rights violations have plagued us for centuries and they continue to do so. What has changed?

A.R.—I don’t think that there’s been that much change in the genocidal impulse. Technology and industrialization have only enabled human beings to kill each other in larger numbers. I talked about the slaughter of 2,000 Muslims in the state of Gujarat in India. It was all on TV.

About three months ago, the killers were caught on camera talking about how they decided how to target the Muslim community, how it was all planned, how the police was involved, how the chief ministers were involved, how they murdered, how they raped. It was actually broadcast on TV and it worked in the favor of that party. The people who voted for them said, “This is what they deserve.” So I actually feel that this notion of the liberal conscience, of human conscience, is a fake notion. Today in India we are on the verge of something terrible. Like I say in the article, the grasshoppers have landed, and there is a kind of shutting down and cutting off of the poor from their resources, herding them off their land and rivers. And people are just watching. Their eyes are open but they are looking the other way. And again and again we think of the fact that in Germany when Jews were being exterminated, people must have been taking their children to piano lessons, violin lessons, worrying about their children’s homework. That kind of absolute lack of conscience is still present today. No amount of appeal to conscience can make any change. The only way disaster can be averted is if the people who are on the receiving end of that can resist.

Khatchig Mouradian is a journalist, writer and translator, currently based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He can be contacted at: khatchigm@hotmail.com.

An invitation to Musa Dagh

2008-02-05T07:43:00.000-08:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Jewish Advocate
December 2007

Franz Werfel, an Austrian-Jewish writer, became an international literary figure with his 1933 novel, “Die vierzig Tage des Musa Dagh,” originally written in German and published a year later in English under the title “The Forty Days of Musa Dagh.” The novel tells the story of the heroic self-defense of the Armenians of Musa Dagh during the Armenian genocide of 1915. Werfel decided to write the novel after witnessing the plight of Armenian refugee children in Damascus in 1929. Little did he know that his novel would not only become a classic and an inspiration for generations of Armenians, but would also serve as a model of survival and resistance for his own people during the Holocaust.

After the 1938 Anschluss, Werfel left Austria to take refuge in France. And with the occupation of France by the Nazis, he narrowly escaped to the U.S. He thus avoided the concentration camps, where a generation of Jewish leaders and youth found solace, inspiration and a call to uprising in his novel.“Momentous moral questions arise from Werfel’s book,” said Prof. Yair Auron. “The story of the defense of Musa Dagh became, indeed, a source of inspiration, an example for the underground members to learn, a model to imitate. They equated their fate with that of the Armenians.” He continued: “In both cases, murderous evil empires conspired to uproot entire communities, to bring about their total physical extinction. In both cases, resistance embodied the concept of death and national honor on the one hand, and the chance of being saved as individuals and as a nation on the other.”

Auron noted that “reading the book strengthens the spirit of the members of the youth movements, the future fighters, as Mordechai Tannenbaum and other underground leaders suggested.”Werfel’s novel had a great influence on Antek (Yitzhak Zuckerman), the deputy commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the author of “A Surplus of Memory: Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.” When talking about the Holocaust and what books to read on the issue, Antek would say that “the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising could not be understood without reading ‘The Forty days of Musa Dagh.’”

In an introduction to the French edition of the book, Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize Elie Wiesel writes, “The novel is a masterpiece. … This Armenian community became very close to me. Written before the coming of Hitler, this novel seems to foretell the future. How did Franz Werfel know the vocabulary and the mechanism of the Holocaust before the Holocaust – artistic intuition or historic memory?” He continues, “The novel is precisely about this memory. The besieged Armenians feared not death but being forgotten.”In a time when the memory of genocide victims – from the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust – is under attack by genocide deniers, this article is an invitation to read Werfel’s novel and honor the memory of the heroes of Musa Dagh and the Warsaw Ghetto.

Khatchig Mouradian is a journalist, poet and translator based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly.

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/opinions/?content_id=4201

Olives and Horizons

2008-02-02T07:48:00.000-08:00

The Melkonian Class of 1968 Reunites On Board the AHC
By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
Feb. 2, 2008

“All the support I have provided to Melkonian—whether moral or financial—does not even pay for the olives we ate there,” says Vahe Soudjian, an import/export negotiator from France, who was on board the Costa Fortuna from Jan. 12-20 to participate in the Melkonian Class of 1968 reunion. “I owe all my successes in life to the Melkonian Educational Institution.”

Twenty-one graduates of the class of 1968 (65 percent of the entire class) and three teachers participated in the 40th anniversary reunion with their spouses and family members. They came from Australia, Greece, Lebanon, Cyprus, France, Abu Dhabi, the U.S. and Canada to see with their classmates and talk about memories of a boarding school which they say gave them everything one needs to lead a fulfilling life.

“Melkonian was a fascinating educational institute that has always fulfilled the responsibility it was entrusted with. The graduates who are gathered here 40 years later are living proof of that,” says Sarkis Hamboyan of Toronto, who taught history, geography and educational psychology at Melkonian from 1965-68. “These responsibilities go beyond teaching into hayetsi tasdiyaragutyoun. These men and women are dedicated Armenians, actively involved in community life.”

I ask him what it feels like to be surrounded by his students again. “I am feeling at home. It’s like finding a long-lost brother or sister,” he says.

Businessman Vahe Halajian from New York, who currently works in Qatar, says the reunion gave him an opportunity to reflect on the role Melkonian played in his life. “We did not know at the time what a great place Melkonian was. It created an environment for us to learn and, yes, to do mischievous things.” He pauses, then adds, “Melkonian was invaluable nutrition for our minds and souls.”

While several Melkoniantsis had not been in touch with their classmates, Chahe Bardakjian, a marketing and sales director from Greece, maintained contact. “I always look for Melkoniantsis,” he said.

Mihran Jizmejian from Toronto taught at Melkonian from 1965-73 and was also responsible for the discipline of the educational institute. He recounts how the students who had discipline problems are the closest to him today. According to him, the Armenian community is orphaned with the closing of Melkonian.

The institute might have closed its doors, but the spirit of Melkonian is alive and well. “I, as a Melkoniantsi, together with two dedicated Armenians, started a Saturday school in Sydney,” says Boghos Mikaelian, a mortgage broker from Australia. “Melkonian might have closed its doors, but it opened so many new horizons.”

America Deserves

2008-02-02T07:45:00.000-08:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
Feb. 2, 2008

“I know I haven’t spent a long time to learn the ways of Washington, but I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”—Barack Obama

The ANCA this week decided to endorse Barack Obama as the Democratic Presidential candidate who can change “the ways of Washington” when it comes to issues of concern for Armenian-Americans and the anti-genocide community in the U.S. The decision was made because the ANCA, and the Armenian-American community on the whole, are sick and tired of the ways of Washington—the way continuous administrations have insulted the memory of the victims of the genocide and the ever-dwindling numbers of genocide survivors by trivializing their suffering. These survivors have since become citizens of this country, have fought and struggled for this nation, while their presidents—leaders of the free world—have yet to validate their history.

The Armenian-American community—and, we believe, every informed and concerned citizen of this country—cannot help but be sick and tired of how the ways of Washington and the ways of Ankara merge when it comes to denial, the falsification and complete disregard to the suffering of an entire people.

The Armenian-American community is also sick and tired of the way the Bush Administration has treated Armenia and the Karabakh question, succumbing more often than not to policies dictated by a country considered to be America’s ally—Turkey.

For all these, and many other reasons, America deserves a leader…America deserves a leader who will not say, “It is not the right time” when it comes to recognizing genocide.America deserves a leader who will not say that there’s “more important work to do” for Congress than setting the historical record straight.

America deserves a leader who will stand up against human rights violations, atrocities and genocide, whether past or present, whether committed by allies on enemies.

America deserves a leader who says, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington… I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

And, finally, America deserves a leader who says, “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.” And stands by what s/he says. We look to Barack Obama to be that leader.

Une interview de Chris Bohjalian

2007-12-23T07:37:00.000-08:00

Le romancier acclamé par la critique parle de sa vie et de son œuvre

Par Khatchig Mouradian

Traduction Louise Kiffer

Chris Bohjalian, acclamé par la critique, est l'auteur de 11 romans, dont plusieurs sont devenus des bestsellers du New York Times. Ses romans s'intitulent "Midwives" (Sage-femmes) - une sélection de Publishers Weekly Best Book, et une sélection de Oprah Book Club: "Before you know Kindness"Et "The Double Bind". Ses ouvrages ont été traduits en 20 langues. Bohjalian est diplômé du Armherst College, et habite à Vermont, avec son épouse et sa fille.Les articles de Bohjalian sont parus dans Cosmopolitan, Reader's Digest et "The Boston Globe Sunday Magazine"Il est journaliste pour Gannett's Burlington Free Press depuis 1992.
Dans cette interview, menée au début du mois, Bohjalian parle de ses romans et de ses articles, ainsi que de ses passions et de ses souvenirs.
* * *
Khatchig Mouradian – Vous avez déménagé au Vermont, de New York après une épreuve désagréable avec un taxi. En quoi Chris Bohjalian, romancier de New York serait-il différent du romancier de Vermont en termes d'inspiration et de problèmes que vous soulevez dans vos romans ?
Chris Bohjalian – Les romanciers parlent d'un certain nombre de sujets angoissants sur la façon dont ils ont trouvé leur voix. La réalité, cependant, est que j'ai trouvé la mienne dans le Vermont. Le Vermont est un microcosme fascinant pour des questions qui relèvent de partout – l'environnement contre le développement, la médecine alternative et la traditionnelle, tout le bagage que nous amenons sur l'orientation sexuelle, et c'est si petit qu'il est possible d'animer ces problèmes à une échelle humaine, reconnaissable et profondément accessible. Par exemple, je n'aurais jamais écrit un livre sur le lieu de naissance littéral et métaphorique dans notre culture (Midwives), si j'étais resté à Manhattan. Après tout, la maison natale ne fait pas partie du dialogue. Je n'aurais pas non plus écrit un roman vaguement écologique comme Water Witches – et il est intéressant de remarquer que j'ai écrit ce roman en 1993 (il a été publié en 1995) des années avant que nous soyons préoccupés par le changement du climat mondial tel que nous le sommes maintenant. Ce n'est pas que je sois particulièrement prescient, mais en quelque sorte le Vermont l'est.
Même un roman tel que "The Double Bind" qui explore des thèmes que je n'aurais probablement pas abordés à New York – y compris naturellement la maladie mentale, et les sans abris – a trouvé son information dans le Vermont. Il était facile de faire des recherches sur le sujet à l'hôpital psychiatrique d'Etat, et dans l'un des établissements correctionnels, de même que pour trouver des thérapeutes et des assistants sociaux capables de m'aider, puisque nous sommes si peu nombreux. Un appel téléphonique ça et là, et je pouvais obtenir les interviews nécessaires.
Pourtant, j'aime New York. J'y retourne souvent, et la moitié de "Before you Know Kindness" s'est fait là-bas. Mais je pense que j'ai trouvé au Vermont des sujets plus aptes à renforcer mon style.
K.M. – Comment avez-vous décidé des sujets à traiter dans vos romans ? Dites voir comment vous procédez quand vous écrivez un roman.
C.B. L'inspiration provient invariablement de ma vie personnelle. Quelqu'un que j'ai rencontré, ou quelque chose dont j'ai entendu parler, ou que j'ai vu.
"The Double Bind" peut en être un bon exemple. Le roman a pris naissance en décembre 2003, quand Rita Markley, la directrice administrative du logement des sans abris, a partagé avec moi un box de vieilles photos. Les images en noir et blanc avaient été prises par un photographe qui avait été sans abri et qui était mort dans l'appartement de l'immeuble que son organisation avait trouvé pour lui. Il s'appelait Bob "Soupy" Campbell.
Les photos étaient remarquables, à la fois grâce au talent manifeste de Campbell, et à cause du sujet. J'ai reconnu les artistes – musiciens, comédiens, acteurs – et les rédacteurs sur la plupart d'entre elles.
J'écris un article hebdomadaire pour le "Burlington free Press" qui explique pourquoi Rita voulait que je voie les photos. Elle pensait que cela pourrait faire une histoire intéressante et elle avait tout à fait raison. J'ai écrit à propos de Campbell en décembre 2003, faisant des recherches sur sa vie et ses réalisations, et les raisons pour lesquelles il s'était retrouvé sans abri, et à ce jour, c'est resté les textes favoris que j'ai écrits pour ce journal. J'avais rendu célèbres les talents de Campbell (qui étaient nombreux) et j'avais rappelé aux lecteurs la ligne très fine qui sépare tant de nous de ceux qui deviennent sans abris. Mais ensuite, j'ai jugé que j'avais épuisé le sujet.
Six mois plus tard, en juin 2004, j'ai relu "The Great Gatsby" (Gatsby le Magnifique). J'adore ce roman. Peu d'écrivains ont ciselé des phrases si constamment lumineuses que Fitzerald ou compris la classe et la culture, et le profond désir également.
Ensuite, j'ai été faire une promenade en vélo sur une vilaine route profonde sous une canopée dans les bois. Ma femme avait entendu une histoire à la radio ce jour-là, que des parents avaient dit ceci à leurs enfants: si quelqu'un essayait de les enlever alors qu'ils étaient en train de rouler sur leur vélo, ils devraient se cramponner à leur guidon de toutes leurs forces. Il est plus difficile d'enlever quelqu'un et de le jeter à l'arrière d'une voiture ou d'une camionnette, s'il est fermement attaché à son vélo. La géométrie ne fonctionne pas.
Comme je roulais, je me suis mis à penser à Bob Campbell pour la première fois depuis des mois, et je pensais à lui relativement à Gatsby le magnifique. Pourquoi ? Peut-être parce que nous voyons toujours Gatsby le magnifique à travers la brume des photos en noir et blanc – le medium de Campbell. Et, naturellement, Gatsby le Magnifique est un roman de l'époque du jazz – or Campbell avait photographié de nombreux musiciens de jazz.
Et ainsi l'idée du "Double Bind" (double lien) s'est formée dans mon esprit, sur cette vilaine route. Je savais précisément comment un livre allait commencer, et pour la première fois de ma vie - je savais précisément comment il allait finir.
Bien sûr, cela voulait dire que je connaissais le A et le Z, mais pas les 24 lettres entre les deux. Cela voulait dire que j'avais une série de problèmes différents à résoudre. J'écrivis quatre brouillons avant même de pouvoir commencer à en publier un sérieusement. Un projet Henry-James-ian à la troisième personne; puis un projet à la première personne raconté par Laurel Estabrook (le personnage principal); ensuite un projet avec plusieurs narrateurs à la première personne; et finalement un projet subjectif à la troisième personne – moins froid et omniscient que la version initiale. Le brouillon a marché dans des chemins que le premier n'avait pas pris. C'est seulement là que j'ai commencé à perfectionner et à resserrer le roman.
K.M. – Les femmes figurent éminemment dans plusieurs de vos romans. Parlez-nous du défi d'écrire un roman comme "Sage-Femme" ou "The Double Bind " où fouiller dans le psychisme des comportements est la clé.
C.B. –J'aurais souhaité avoir eu un procédé spécifique mais je ne trouve pas qu'écrire sur les femmes soit si différent qu'écrire sur les hommes. Dans chacun des cas, c'est un acte d'imagination. Comment une personne va-t-elle réagir à un événement ou à un moment spécifique ? Qu'est-ce qu'un individu va éprouver ou penser ? Qu'est-ce que les gens voient ou entendent ?
Au cours des dix dernières années, j'ai écrit des romans ou décrit des scènes dans des romans en partant du point de vue (entre autres) d'une sage-femme, d'une lesbienne transsexuelle, d'une vigoureuse citoyenne âgée, d'un enfant américano-africain placé dans une famille d'accueil, une fillette de dix ans, une aristocrate prussienne de 18 ans en 1945, un jeune homme juif d'Allemagne qui avait sauté d'un train à destination d'un camp de la mort en 1943, et une variété d'hommes d'âge moyen à demi chauves. J'ai vraiment trouvé cette dernière catégorie – les hommes d'âge moyen à demi chauves comme moi, la moins intéressante.
K.M. – Parlez-nous de votre prochain roman Skeletons at the Feast (Squelettes à la fête)
C.B.- Ce roman est un départ – et c'est, au point de vue création – la chose la plus satisfaisante que j'ai faite dans ma vie (cela ne veut pas dire que c'est plutôt bien, ou que j'ai fait quelque chose de juste – c'est seulement que cela a été un combat et que c'était réconfortant).
En 1999, le père d'une petite fille de la classe du jardin d'enfant de ma fille m'a demandé si je voulais lire le journal inédit que sa grand'mère lui avait laissé. Sa mère venait de le traduire de l'allemand en anglais, et l'avait tapé à la machine. Nous étions de bons amis, je fus donc heureux d'y jeter un coup d'œil.
Le journal racontait en détails la vie de cette femme dans une propriété massive et une ferme dans la Prusse orientale, et il y avait un tas de choses qui me fascinaient – principalement les déplacements désespérés des femmes au cours des derniers mois de la seconde guerre mondiale pour atteindre les lignes britanniques et américaines avant l'arrivée de l'armée soviétique. Je l'ai proposé à plusieurs éditeurs, mais aucun n'était preneur.
Des années plus tard, en 2005, j'ai lu "Armageddon" de Max Hastings son compte-rendu non romanesque de la dernière année de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale en Allemagne, et je suis tombé sur des références à des scènes qui m'étaient familières. Puis je me suis rendu compte que j'avais lu ces mêmes faits dans ce journal six ans auparavant. J'ai demandé à mon ami si je pouvais le relire. Quand je l'ai revu, j'ai décidé que je voulais écrire un roman situé dans cette période, et c'est ainsi que j'ai commencé une partie de la recherche la plus intense (et l'écriture) de ma carrière professionnelle.
Skeletons at the Feast est un roman d'amour, un triangle d'amour, en fait qui se passe en Pologne et en Allemagne dans les six derniers mois de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale.
Les personnages ? Il y a Anna Emmerich, 18 ans, une fille d'aristocrates prussiens qui étaient à l'origine satisfaits quand leur propriété massive redevint allemande en 1939, mais qui découvrirent au cours des cinq années suivantes ce que signifiait réellement pour la gestion nazie leur district rural.
Il y a son amoureux, Callum Finella, un prisonnier de guerre de 20 ans, qui a été détaché du stalag dans sa ferme familiale comme travailleur forcé. Et il y a un caporal de la Wehrmacht de 26 ans, que les deux autres connaissent sous le nom de Manfred – mais qui est en réalité un chanteur, un Juif allemand qui s'est débrouillé pour oser s'échapper d'un train à destination d'Auschwitz, et qui a depuis lors saboté l'effort de guerre nazi.
Le roman raconte la plus longue journée de leur vie. Leur essai de croiser les rescapés du troisième Reich, de Varsovie au Rhin s'il le faut, pour atteindre les lignes britanniques et américaines.
K.M.- Nous avons discuté du rôle que le Vermont a joué dans votre œuvre. Qu'en est-il du rôle que vos parents et votre famille élargie ont joué, et de celui que votre épouse et votre fille jouent maintenant ? Comment diffusent-elles votre œuvre ?
C.B.- Ma mère s'est éteinte en 1995. Et mes parents – mon père naturellement depuis 1995 – vivent à des milliers de kilomètres depuis 1988. Il est certain que mon père est fier de moi. Ma mère l'était jusqu'à sa mort. Mais je ne dirais pas qu'ils ont influencé ma décision de devenir écrivain. Ils aimaient et soutenaient, et lisaient tout ce qu'un enfant pouvait désirer de ses parents. Mais ils ne furent pas un facteur conscient de ce que je faisais ou des sujets que je choisissais pour mes romans.
Ma femme et ma fille, en revanche, on joué un rôle critique dans mon travail. Ma femme est une éditrice merveilleuse et patiente. Elle, et Shaye Areheart (mon éditeur à Random House) sont les deux premiers lecteurs de tout ce que j'écris. J'apprécie énormément le jugement de ma femme.
Et le fait d'être parent a considérablement changé ce que j'écris. Voyez les romans tels que "les Sages-Femmes" et "Before you know Kindness", et le "Buffalo Soldier". Etre parent a été très important pour eux. Ils n'existeraient pas si ne n'avais pas eu la chance d'avoir ma fille. Et la petite fille dans "The Law of Similars" ? Mais, c'est ma petite fille quand elle avait trois ou quatre ans.
K.M.- Parlez-nous de vos souvenirs de jeunesse qui vous plaisent le plus..
C.B. J'ai eu une enfance classique de banlieue des années 60-70. J'ai grandi dans différentes banlieues à problèmes juste à l'extérieur de New York City (avec un détour de trois ans à Miami, Fla). Quand j'ai lu "Le Chien noir du Destin" de Peter Balakian, j'ai perçu les échos de ma propre enfance.
Nous avons aussi beaucoup déménagé, cependant, et à une certaine période, j'ai été dans quatre écoles différentes en quatre ans. Et ainsi, bien que mon enfance ne fût pas mauvaise, elle ne rassembla pas autour de moi beaucoup d'amis une fois que j'eus terminé ma 6ème année. Le fait est que mes amis ont changé par nécessité presque chaque année, depuis la 7ème année.
Mes souvenirs favoris, dans le désordre, sont:
Jouer au baseball dans la Little League de Stamford, Conn.;
Lire pour la première fois Johnny Tremain et " To Kill a Mocking Bird" et "April Morning".
Rendre visite à mes grands-parents à Tuckhahoe, N.Y. et écouter Léo Bohjalian – mon grand-père jouer du oud, après avoir perdu sa femme dans une piscine. Je peux encore sentir les beureks de ma grand'mère.
Organiser des cartes de baseball dans mon salon avant les orages;
Voler partout dans des aéroplanes
Etre follement effrayé par les films suivants: "The Birds (Les oiseaux) "The Haunting" et "Psycho".
K.M. – Vous avez écrit des articles pour Burlington Free Press depuis environ 17 ans maintenant. Parlez-nous de cette expérience.
C.B. J'aime bien écrire des articles, sinon je ne le ferais pas. J'écris habituellement à la fin de la semaine, et c'est un charmant répit de mon roman, qui peut être parfois sombre. Cela ne veut pas dire que je n'aborde pas des sujets graves dans mes colonnes à l'occasion. Je le fais. J'ai écrit par exemple, sur la mort de ma mère, sur le changement du climat dans le monde, et sur la guerre en Irak. Mais généralement, c'est une occasion d'explorer quelque chose de personnel, ou quelque chose qui me fait sourire.
Et alors que les gens me disent que ça doit être stressant de rédiger un article chaque semaine, ça ne l'est pas vraiment. C'est beaucoup moins stressant qu'un roman. Le secret ? J'essaie de ne jamais perdre de vue le fait que quelques heures après la parution de l'article le dimanche matin, il aide soit à allumer le feu dans le poêle à bois soit à être étalé sous la litière du chat.

http://www.armenweb.org/espaces/louise/reportages/chris-bohjalian.html

An Interview with Chris Bohjalian

2007-12-22T07:26:00.000-08:00

Critically Acclaimed Novelist Talks about His Life and Work
By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armeian Weekly
December 22-29, 2007

Chris Bohjalian is the critically acclaimed author of 11 novels, several of which have become New York Times bestsellers. His novels include Midwives (a Publishers Weekly Best Book and an Oprah’s Book Club selection), Before You Know Kindness and The Double Bind. His work has been translated to 20 languages. Bohjalian graduated from Amherst College, and lives in Vermont with his wife and daughter.

Bohjalian’s articles have appeared in Cosmopolitan, Reader’s Digest and the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine. He has been a columnist for Gannett’s Burlington Free Press since 1992.
In this interview, conducted earlier this month, Bohjalian talks about his novels and columns, as well as passions and memories.

* * *

Khatchig Mouradian—You moved to Vermont from New York after an unpleasant experience involving a taxi. How would Chris Bohjalian the novelist in New York have been different from Chris Bohjalian the novelist in Vermont in terms of inspiration and issues you raise in your novels?

Chris Bohjalian—Novelists talk with an agonizing amount of hubris about how they found their voice. The reality, however, is that I did indeed find mine in Vermont. Vermont is a fascinating microcosm for issues that have relevance everywhere—the environment vs. development, alternative vs. traditional medicine, all the baggage that we bring to gender and sexual orientation—and it is so small that it is possible to bring these issues to life on a scale that is human, recognizable and profoundly accessible. For instance, I would never have written a book about the literal and metaphoric place of birth in our culture (Midwives), if I had remained in Manhattan. After all, home birth isn’t a part of the dialogue. Nor would have I written a vaguely eco-novel such as Water Witches—and it’s interesting to note that I wrote that novel in 1993 (it was published in 1995), years before we were focused on global climate change the way we are now. It’s not that I am especially prescient —but in some ways Vermont is.

Even a novel such as The Double Bind, which explores themes that I would have been likely to come across in New York—including, of course, mental illness and homelessness—was informed by Vermont. It was easy to research the subject at the state psychiatric hospital and one of the correctional facilities, as well find therapists and social workers who were available to help me, because we are just so small. A phone call here and a phone call there, and I was able to line up the necessary interviews.

Now, I love New York. I get back there often, and half of Before You Know Kindness is set there. But I believe I have found subjects in Vermont that are more in keeping with my strengths as a stylist.

K.M.—How do you decide what issues to tackle in your novels? Talk about the process of writing a novel.

C.B.—Invariably the inspiration is something in my personal life: Someone I have met or something I have heard or something I have seen.

The Double Bind may be as good an example as any. The novel had its origins in December 2003, when Rita Markley, the executive director of Burlington’s homeless shelter, shared with me a box of old photographs. The black-and-white images had been taken by a once-homeless photographer who had died in the apartment building her organization had found for him. His name was Bob “Soupy” Campbell.

The photos were remarkable, both because of Campbell’s evident talent and because of the subject matter. I recognized the performers—musicians, comedians, actors—and newsmakers in many of them.

I write a weekly column for the “Burlington Free Press,” which was why Rita wanted me to see the photos. She thought they might make for an interesting story, and she was absolutely right: I wrote about Campbell in December 2003, researching his life and accomplishments and why he might have wound up homeless, and to this day it remains one of my favorite essays I’ve written for the paper. I had celebrated Campbell’s talents (which were extensive) and I had reminded people of the very fine line that separates so many of us from being homeless. But then I thought I was done with the subject.

Six months later, in June 2004, I reread The Great Gatsby. I love that novel. Few writers crafted sentences as consistently luminescent as Fitzgerald or understood class and culture and longing as well.

Then I went for a bike ride on a dirt road deep in a canopy of woods. My wife had heard a story on the radio that day that advised parents to tell their children the following: If someone ever tried to abduct them while they were riding their bikes, they should hold onto the handlebars for dear life. It’s more difficult to abduct someone and throw them into the back of a car or a van if they are firmly attached to their bike. The geometry just doesn’t work.

As I rode, I started thinking about Bob Campbell for the first time in months, and I was thinking about him in regard to The Great Gatsby. Why? Perhaps it’s because we always see The Great Gatsby through a haze of black and white photographs—Campbell’s medium. And, of course, The Great Gatsby is a jazz age novel—and Campbell photographed a lot of jazz musicians.

And so the idea for The Double Bind formed in my head on that dirt road. I knew precisely how a book would begin and—for the only time in my life—I knew precisely how it would end.

Of course, this also meant I know A and Z, but not the 24 letters in between. That meant I had a different set of problems to solve. I wrote four drafts before I could even begin to seriously edit it: A Henry James-ian third person draft; then a first person draft narrated by Laurel Estabrook (the main character); then a draft with multiple first person narrators; and, finally, a draft that was third person subjective—less cold and omniscient than that initial version. This draft worked in ways the earlier ones hadn’t. Only then was I able to start refining and tightening the novel.

K.M.—Women figure prominently in many of your novels. Talk about the challenge of writing a novel like Midwives or The Double Bind, where delving into the psyche of the characters is key.

C.B.—I wish I could say there was a specific process, but I don’t find writing about women that different from writing about men. In each case, it’s an act of imagination. How would a person respond to a specific event or moment? What is an individual experiencing or thinking? What are people seeing or hearing?

In the last decade, I have written novels or scenes within novels from the perspectives of (among others) a midwife, a transsexual lesbian, a vigorous female senior citizen, an African-American foster child, a 10-year-old girl, an 18-year-old female Prussian aristocrat in 1945, a young Jewish man from Germany who has jumped off a train on the way to a death camp in 1943, and a variety of balding middle-aged men. I actually found this last category—the balding middle-aged men who are like me—the least interesting.

K.M.—Talk about your upcoming novel, Skeletons at the Feast.

C.B.—This novel is a departure—and it was creatively the most satisfying thing I have done in my life. (That doesn’t mean it’s any good or I got anything right—just that it was a struggle and it was rewarding.)

Back in 1999, the father of a girl in my daughter’s kindergarten class asked me if I would read an unpublished diary his grandmother had left behind. His mother had just translated it from German into English and typed it up. We’re good friends, and so I was happy to take a look at it.
The diary chronicled this woman’s life on a massive estate and farm in East Prussia, and there was a lot in it that fascinated me—especially the desperate journey the women made in the last months of the Second World War to reach the British and American liners ahead of the Soviet army. I shared it with some editors, but there weren’t any takers.

Years later, in 2005, I read Max Hastings’ Armageddon, his non-fiction account of the last year of the Second World War in Germany, and I kept coming across references to scenes that were familiar. And then I realized why: I had read of similar occurrences in that diary six years earlier. I asked my friend if I could see it again. When I reread it, I decided I wanted to write a novel set in the period, and thus began some of the most intense research (and writing) of my professional career.

Skeletons at the Feast is a love story—a love triangle, really, set in Poland and Germany in the last six months of World War Two.

The characters? There is 18-year-old Anna Emmerich, the daughter of Prussian aristocrats who were originally pleased when their massive estate once more became a part of Germany in 1939, but who discovered over the next five years what Nazi management really meant for their rural district.

There is her lover, Callum Finella, a 20-year-old prisoner-of-war who was brought from the stalag to her family’s farm as forced labor. And there is a 26-year-old Wehrmacht corporal who the pair know as Manfred—but who is, in reality, Uri Singer, a German Jew who managed a daring escape from a train bound for Auschwitz, and who has been sabotaging the Nazi war effort ever since.

The novel chronicles the longest journey of their lives: Their attempt to cross the remnants of the Third Reich, from Warsaw to the Rhine if necessary, to reach the British and American lines.

K.M.—We discussed the role Vermont played in your work. What about the role your parents and extended family played, and the role your wife and daughter play now? How do they inform your work?

C.B.—My mother passed away in 1995. And my parents—my father, of course, since 1995— have lived thousands of miles away since 1988. Certainly my father is proud of me. My mother was until she died. But I wouldn’t say they were instrumental in my decision to become a writer. They were loving and supportive and literate —everything a child could want from parents. But they were not a conscious factor in what I do or the subjects I choose for my fiction.

My wife and my daughter, however, play critical roles in my work. My wife is a wondrous and patient editor: She, along with Shaye Areheart (my editor at Random House), are the first two readers of all that I pen. I value my wife’s judgment enormously.

And being a parent has monumentally changed what I write. Look at novels such as Midwives and Before You Know Kindness and The Buffalo Soldier. Being a parent was pivotal to them.

They wouldn’t exist if I hadn’t been blessed with my daughter. And the little girl in The Law of Similars? Well, that is my little girl at three and four.

K.M.—Talk about memories from your youth that you cherish most.

C.B.—I had a classically 1960s/1970s suburban childhood. I grew up in a variety of Cheever-esque dysfunctional suburbs just outside of New York City, (with a three-year detour to Miami, Fla.). When I read Peter Balakian’s Black Dog of Fate, I saw echoes of my own childhood.
We also moved a lot, however, and in one period I went to four different schools in four years. And so while my childhood wasn’t bad, it didn’t revolve around great friends once I finished 6th grade. The fact is, my friends changed by necessity almost every year from 7th grade on.

My favorite memories, in no apparent order, are:
Playing Little League baseball in Stamford, Conn.;
Reading Johnny Tremain and To Kill a Mockingbird and April Morning for the first time;
Visiting my grandparents in Tuckahoe, N.Y., and listening to Leo Bohjalian—my grandfather—play the oud, after losing to his wife in pool. I can still smell my grandmother’s beregs;
Organizing baseball cards in my living room before thunderstorms;
Flying anywhere on airplanes;
Being scared silly by the following movies: “The Birds,” “The Haunting” and “Psycho.”

K.M.—You have been writing a column for Burlington Free Press for almost 17 years now. Talk about that experience.

C.B.—I enjoy writing the column. Otherwise, I wouldn’t do it. I usually write it at the end of the week, and it’s a nice respite from my fiction, which can be rather dark. That doesn’t mean that I don’t address serious issues in my column on occasion: I do. I have, for instance, written about the death of my mother, global climate change and the war in Iraq. But usually it’s an opportunity either to explore something personal or something that makes me smile.

And while people tell me that it must be a lot of pressure to turn out a column every single week, it really isn’t. It’s a lot less pressure than a novel. The secret? I try never to lose sight of the fact that a few hours after the column runs in the newspaper on Sunday morning, it is either helping to light a fire in a wood stove or lining the bottom of a cat’s litter box.

The Betrayal of Turkish Jews

2007-11-15T17:33:00.000-08:00

Khatchig Mouradian
November 15, 2007

For the past several months, the Jews of Turkey have been in the international spotlight. As Congress has debated the Armenian Genocide resolution, high-ranking Turkish officials have warned that Turkish Jews will be endangered if the resolution passes. And Jewish-American organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have repeatedly cited the predicament of Turkish Jews as reason to support Turkey's campaign of genocide denial.
In an effort to better understand the plight of Turkish Jewry, I interviewed several prominent scholars who have studied the community.
To read the entire article, go to:
http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/turkish_jews

Une Interview avec Serj Tankian

2007-11-13T10:52:00.000-08:00

par Khatchig Mouradian

Traduction Valère

http://www.yevrobatsi.org/st/item.php?r=2&id=3799

Cet interview de Serj Tankian, leader de System of a down, a été réalisé le 16 octobre 2007 au Paradise Club à Boston, dans le Massassuchet. Serj est actuellement en tournée pour la promotion de son nouvel album, sorti le 23 octobre, intitulé “Elect the Dead”.

Khatchig Mouradian : Parle-moi de ton expérience sur le nouvel opus.
Serj Tankian : Faire ce disque a été une expérience très enrichissante, une expérience vraiment positive pour moi, et très organique. J’ai mon propre studio d’enregistrement, j’y vais et j’y enregistre comme cela me plaît. Parmi la centaine de chansons que j’ai écrites, j’ai pris celles qui se prêtaient bien à ma voix pour ce projet particulier. J’ai enregistré tous les pianos et la plupart des cordes ( j’ai intégré deux guitaristes mais j’ai écrit toutes les pièces à cordes), j’ai programmé tous les jeux de batterie que j’ai réintroduis plus tard pour les jouer en live, arrangé la plupart des guitares, la plupart des basses et des voix. L’essentiel est produit et enregistré par moi sur mon propre label, et distribué par Warner.

K.M. : Tu as déclaré : « Avec ce disque, j’assume le succès ou l’échec. Ca m’a fait comprendre que j’ai une vie étonnante et je fais tout pour que mes rêves deviennent réalité”. Parle-moi de ces rêves.
S.T. : En fait, je rêve chaque nuit. [rire]. J’adore faire de la musique et c’est devenu mon travail. C’était ma passion et maintenant c’est aussi mon travail. J’ai aussi consacré une partie de ma vie à apprendre d’autres choses autour de moi. Que ce soit spirituel, politique ou écologique. Et, tu vois, il y a beaucoup de choses que je veux accomplir.
Mais, pour moi, l’accomplissement n’est pas vraiment important. Ce n’est pas seulement le fait de sortir un album qui m’intéresse, mais le processus qui te fait rencontrer des gens différents, différents vidéastes, différents artistes, webdesigners et journalistes, de profiter et d’apprendre ce que ce processus génère.

K.M. . : Concernant ta chanson “The Unthinking Majority” (La majorité silencieuse), tu déclares “ Cette chanson ne ressemble à aucune autre de mon disque solo et est censée inspirer une action collective”. Quelle action collective voudrais-tu voir ?
S.T.: Dernièrement, j’ai voulu comprendre en profondeur ce que la civilisation signifie. Je pense qu’on est tous accros à cette chose qu’on appelle ‘civilisation” qui a commencé il y a 10.000 ans (ndlr ‘Before Present’ pour préciser). Nous les Arméniens avons été au commencement de la civilisation (ndlr il délire, pardonnez-le, mais on l’aime quand même – note du correcteur : je confirme, d’ailleurs on est pareils). Cela dit, nous ignorons qui nous étions avant la civilisation, avant même celle des Arméniens. Nous savons que nous avons eu de multiples dieux comme les Grecs et beaucoup d’autres cultures, mais nous n’en savons guère plus sur cette époque, ni d’où vient son véritable caractère spirituel. Donc, c’est très important pour moi d’explorer notre part indigène, pas seulement en tant qu’Arménien, mais en tant qu’être humain. Nous faisons partie d’une progression des choses sur cette planète. Beaucoup de changements radicaux se produisent et continuent de se produire, et c’est très important pour nous de savoir où nous nous situons.

K.M. : Tu as dit “La civilisation en elle-même n’est pas durable. La civilisation est terminée”. Tu peux expliquer ?
S.T.: Au rythme actuel de progression, basé sur une surpopulation et un taux accéléré de destruction des ressources naturelles mondiales, la civilisation n’ est scientifiquement pas tenable.

K.M. : Parle-nous du rôle de System of a Down joué dans...
S.T.: La fin de la civilisation? [Hahaha]. Ce serait une super question ! Excuse-moi, quelle était ta question ?

K.M. : Le rôle qu’a joué System of a Down dans ta carrière et dans ta vie.
S.T.: Ca été mon groupe pendant 11 ans. Ca a lancé ma carrière musicale. Y compris mes amis avec qui j’ai joué et auprès de qui j’ai appris, que j’ai aimés et aidés. Et cela m’a conduit à être ce que je suis aujourd’hui pour explorer le genre de styles artistiques que j’ai explorés et être capable d’avoir une plate-forme d’expression. Mais System of a down n’est pas une marque, c’est un collectif de 4 amis qui sont artistes et qui jouent ensemble quand ils le désirent. Et je fais partie de ce collectif, et ma voix fait toujours partie de ce collectif.

K.M. : Entre la musique, la poésie et l’activisme populaire, où est-ce que tu te situes et comment te sens-tu dans ces genres différents ?
S.T.: J’essaie tout, je suis mes envies, tu comprends ? Si je sens comme un appel et que je dois m’engager quelque part, partir et mettre en place quelque chose, ou si je sens que je dois écrire une chanson, tout cela fait partie de la progression naturelle de ma vie.

K.M. . : Qu’as-tu à déclarer au sujet du débat actuel concernant la résolution du génocide arménien ?
S.T.: Je viens juste d’en parler sur une radio de Boston. On ne peut nier un génocide ou la Shoah en se basant sur une opportunité politique. Ca n’a absolument aucun sens. Si nous affirmons, comme les Etats-Unis, que nous sommes une démocratie, alors nous devons nous regarder en face et nous demander : Pouvons-nous mentir sur un génocide, ou en différer la reconnaissance au nom d’intérêts géopolitiques ou stratégiques ou dans l’intérêt d’une occupation militaire injuste en soi? C’est tenter de défaire une erreur par une autre erreur et cela n’a aucun sens. Voilà pourquoi beaucoup de parlementaires souiennent cette résolution, qui a été votée au Comité des Affaires étrangères. Et je suis sûr qu’elle sera votée par la Chambre des Représentants. D’ailleurs elle a le soutien de sa présidente, Nancy Pelosi.
Je sens qu’il y aura toujours un prétexte. Vous savez, nous avons attendu 92 ans, mais là je veux aller plus loin et dire que la résolution n’est pas l’essentiel. La reconnaissance n’est qu’une part de la juste solution. Si des gens viennent chez moi, tuent ma famille et pillent ma maison, je ne vais pas leur courir après pendant cent ans en les suppliant de reconnaître ce crime. Ce serait absurde. Je les conduirais plutôt au tribunal et j’exigerais la justice. Et c’est ce dont nous devons faire en fin de compte. Mais bien sûr, nous savons que ceci est le premier pas, donc nous devons garder cela à l’esprit.

K.M. . : Toujours sur cette question, la Secrétaire d’Etat C. Rice a déclaré que le “Le vote de cette résolution sera en fait très problématique pour tout ce que nous essayons de faire au Moyen-Orient”.
S.T.: J’ai peur de tout ce qu’ils essaient de faire au Moyen Orient. J’espère que cette résolution leur remettra le cul en place. [ndlr rires]

--------
note :
Nancy Pelosi (née Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro le 26 mars 1940 à Baltimore), est une femme politique américaine, membre du parti démocrate et représentante du 8e district de Californie au Congrès des États-Unis depuis 1987. Elle est la chef de file du parti démocrate à la Chambre des représentants depuis 2002. Présidente de la Chambre des représentants depuis le 4 janvier 2007, elle est la première femme à accéder à un poste aussi élevé.

Turkish PM: No Genocide, ‘We Even Gave the Armenian Deportees Pocket Money’

2007-11-10T06:16:00.000-08:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
Nov. 10, 2007

WASHINGTON—On Nov. 5, after meeting with President Bush, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, speaking mainly of U.S.-Turkish relations, the Kurdish issue and the Armenian Genocide Resolution, H.Res.106.
In his speech, Erdogan said that “it is sad for us to see” the introduction of a resolution that “renders legitimacy to the so-called Armenian genocide.” He stressed that the resolution “has the potential to deeply damage our strategic relations and it is important to ensure that is not discussed on the floor of Congress.”

“In fact, these Armenian allegations which are being kept constantly on the agenda in various countries have not been proven historically or legally,” Erdogan continued, repeating his call for a joint historical commission to examine what happened to the Armenians in 1915. When Erdogan suggested the idea of a “joint commission” in 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) sent him an open letter which read: “We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide. … We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars.”

Yet, at the National Press Club this week, Erdogan said he was sure there was never a genocide of the Armenians. “What took place was called deportation,” he said. “That was a very difficult time. It was a time of war.”

The Armenians, he argued, were provoked by other countries to rebel, leading to Ottoman Turkish government’s decision “to start deporting the Armenian citizens to other parts of the Empire.”

To show how well the Armenian deportees were treated, Erdogan—who made no reference to the killing of any Armenian—went so far as to say that the Ottoman government even provided the Armenians with pocket money. “…And we have documents in our archives which attest to this fact,” he said.

“There are all sorts of instructions about how people should be sent from one area to another, how much money is to be paid to them as pocket money as they travel. Those who counter [our thesis] must come up with their own documents, but there are no documents that they can show,” he charged.

A Leading Turkish Historian Responds

The Armenian Weekly contacted Turkish-born historian and sociologist Taner Akcam, professor of history at the University of Minnesota and author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, to comment on Erdogan’s allegation.
“I haven’t seen any single Ottoman document that shows that money was given to Armenians,” Akcam said. “It is, indeed, true that the central government sent money to the regional authorities to cover the expenses of the deportations. Part of the revenues from plundering the possessions of the Armenians and auctioning them was used by the government to finance the deportations.”

Furthermore, Akcam said, “There is ample evidence that in the Eastern Anatolian regions like Eskishehir, Afyon and Konya, Armenians were partially ‘transported’ by train and were made to pay for their own tickets.

Turkish PM: No Genocide, We Even Gave the Armenian Deportees Pocket Money

2007-11-10T04:25:00.000-08:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
Nov. 10, 2007

WASHINGTON—On Nov. 5, after meeting with President Bush, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, speaking mainly of U.S.-Turkish relations, the Kurdish issue and the Armenian Genocide Resolution, H.Res.106.

In his speech, Erdogan said that “it is sad for us to see” the introduction of a resolution that “renders legitimacy to the so-called Armenian genocide.” He stressed that the resolution “has the potential to deeply damage our strategic relations and it is important to ensure that is not discussed on the floor of Congress.”

“In fact, these Armenian allegations which are being kept constantly on the agenda in various countries have not been proven historically or legally,” Erdogan continued, repeating his call for a joint historical commission to examine what happened to the Armenians in 1915. When Erdogan suggested the idea of a “joint commission” in 2005, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) sent him an open letter which read: “We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide. … We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars.”

Yet, at the National Press Club this week, Erdogan said he was sure there was never a genocide of the Armenians. “What took place was called deportation,” he said. “That was a very difficult time. It was a time of war.”The Armenians, he argued, were provoked by other countries to rebel, leading to Ottoman Turkish government’s decision “to start deporting the Armenian citizens to other parts of the Empire.”

To show how well the Armenian deportees were treated, Erdogan—who made no reference to the killing of any Armenian—went so far as to say that the Ottoman government even provided the Armenians with pocket money. “…And we have documents in our archives which attest to this fact,” he said.

“There are all sorts of instructions about how people should be sent from one area to another, how much money is to be paid to them as pocket money as they travel. Those who counter [our thesis] must come up with their own documents, but there are no documents that they can show,” he charged.

A Leading Turkish Historian Responds

The Armenian Weekly contacted Turkish-born historian and sociologist Taner Akcam, professor of history at the University of Minnesota and author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, to comment on Erdogan’s allegation.

“I haven’t seen any single Ottoman document that shows that money was given to Armenians,” Akcam said. “It is, indeed, true that the central government sent money to the regional authorities to cover the expenses of the deportations. Part of the revenues from plundering the possessions of the Armenians and auctioning them was used by the government to finance the deportations.”

Furthermore, Akcam said, “There is ample evidence that in the Eastern Anatolian regions like Eskishehir, Afyon and Konya, Armenians were partially ‘transported’ by train and were made to pay for their own tickets.

The Washington Post Perpetuates a Destructive Myth

2007-11-02T15:15:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106) has attracted enormous media attention since it was passed by the House International Affairs Committee on October 10. However, the content of many of the articles, columns and stories written make one thing clear: Writers across the United States were ill-prepared to tackle the issue of the Armenian genocide, simply because they knew very little about it.

One case in point is Richard Cohen's article in the Washington Post, titled "Turkey's War on the Truth" (Oct. 16, 2007). Cohen makes arguments based on false premises. After conceding--with condescension--that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was "plenty bad," he concludes that it falls short of genocide "because not all Armenians...were...affected." Clearly, if we follow his train of thought, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and several other cases should not be labeled as "genocide."

Read the entire article here:
http://www.jewcy.com/daily_shvitz/washington_post_lemkin_and_armenian_genocide

An Interview with Serj Tankian

2007-10-21T08:19:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The following interview with System of a Down’s frontman Serj Tankian was conducted on Oct. 16 at the Paradise Club in Boston, Mass. Tankian is on tour promoting his new album—set to be released on Oct. 23—“Elect the Dead.”

Khatchig Mouradian—Talk about your experience putting this album together.
Serj Tankian—Making this record has been a real learning experience, a strong positive experience for me, and very organic. I have my own studio, I go in and record as I please. I have hundreds of songs and I picked out songs that would lend themselves to my voice for this particular project. I recorded all the pianos and most of the strings (I brought in a couple of string players but I wrote all the string parts), programmed all the drums, then brought in drummers later to play them live, performed most of the guitars, most of the bass and vocals, pretty much produced it myself and recorded it myself and put it out on my own label through Warner, the distributor.

K.M.—You say, “With this record all success or failure rests with me. It made me realize that I have an amazing life and I’m getting to make a lot of my dreams come true.” Talk about those dreams.

S.T.—Well I have dreams every night. [Laughs.] I love doing music and it’s become my work. It was my passion and now it’s also my work. I’ve also devoted part of my life to learning other things around me, whether it’s spiritual, political or ecological. And, you know, I have a lot of things I want to accomplish. But accomplishments aren’t really important personally. I enjoy this process of not just putting a record out but involving different people, different video directors, different artists, website designers and journalists, and enjoying the process and learning from the process.

K.M.—Referring to the song “The Unthinking Majority,” you say “it is unlike any song on my solo record and meant to inspire collective action.” What collective action would you like to see?

S.T.—Ultimately I’d like to see some type of deep perspective and understanding of what civilization means. I think we’re all addicted to this thing called civilization that started 10,000 ago. We as Armenians have been at the beginning of that civilization, yet we don’t know what we were before civilization even as Armenians. We just know that we had multiple gods like the Greeks and many other cultures, but we don’t know much about those times and where the true character of spirituality comes from. So it’s very important for me to explore our indigenous past, not just as Armenians but as humans. We’re a part of the progression of things on this planet. A lot of radical changes are occurring and will continue to occur, and it’s important for us to know where we stand.

K.M.—You mentioned civilization. You’ve said, “Civilization itself is not sustainable. Civilization is over.” Can you explain that?

S.T.—At the current rate of progression, based on overpopulation coupled with the accelerated rate of destruction of the world’s natural resources, civilization is scientifically unsustainable.

K.M.—Talk about the role System of a Down played in…

S.T.—Ending civilization? [Laughs.] That would be a great question! Sorry, what was your question?

K.M.—The role System of a Down plated in your career and your life.

S.T.—It’s been my band for 11 years. It launched my musical career. It included my friends that I’ve played with and learned from and love and care for. And it’s brought me to where I am today to explore the type of artistic avenues that I have been exploring and to be able to have a platform of speech. But System of a Down is not a brand, it’s a collective of four friends that are artists that play together when they so desire, and I am a part of that collective, and my voice has always been a part of that collective.

K.M.—From music to poetry to grassroots activism, where do you find yourself and how do you feel in these different avenues?

S.T.—I do whatever, I follow my heart, you know? If I feel like making a call and doing something in terms of activism or going out there and planting something or if I feel like writing a song, it’s just all a part of the natural progression of my life.

K.M.—What do you have to say about the current discussion regarding the Armenian Genocide Resolution?

S.T.—I just said it on a radio station in Boston. You can’t deny a genocide or holocaust based on political expediency. It makes absolutely no sense. If we claim as America that we’re a democracy then we have to look in the mirror and ask: Can we lie about a genocide or hold off its recognition for the sake of geopolitical or strategic gains or a military occupation that is unfair in itself? It’s trying to undo one mistake with another mistake and it doesn’t make sense. That’s why a lot of Congressmen are behind the resolution, and it passed [the House Foreign Relations] Committee and I’m confident that it will pass the House. And it’s got Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s support.

I feel like there’s always going to be an excuse. You know, we’ve waited 92 years, but ultimately I want to go further and say, recognition is not that important. Recognition is one part of the just solution. If someone came to my house, killed my family and robbed my house, I’m not going to run after them for a hundred years and beg them to recognize that crime. That makes no sense, I’m going to take them to court and I’m going to loudly request justice, and that’s what needs to be done ultimately. But obviously, we all know that this is the first step, so we got to keep the goal in mind.

K.M.—On the same issue, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that “The passage of this resolution indeed will be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East.”

S.T.—I’m scared of everything they’re trying to do in the Middle East. Maybe the resolution will help them put their asses in place.

Fallout looms as genocide resolution moves to House

2007-10-18T10:21:00.000-07:00

Many in local community stand behind support for recognition

By Lorne Bell

The Jewish Advocate
Thursday October 18 2007

http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/news/?content_id=3848

Amid frenzied debate at the local, national and international levels, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted on Oct. 10 to officially recognize the Ottoman Empire’s World War I massacre of Armenians as genocide. The non-binding House Resolution 106, which will now move to the full House for vote, prompted Turkey to immediately recall its ambassador to the U.S., and has elicited concerns from Israeli and American officials about the impact on relations with the Turkish government.

“[Relations with Turkey] are very important for Israel,” said Nadav Tamir, consul general of Israel to New England. “Israel was out of the debate.”

Officials in the Bush administration and eight former secretaries of state signaled their opposition to the resolution in advance of last week’s vote. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former secretaries wrote that the passage of HR-106 “would endanger our national security interests.”

While the measure appeared as if it would quickly pass through the House, nearly a dozen House members – from both parties – have withdrawn their support for the resolution as of Wednesday, according to the New York Times.

But while government officials are worried about the consequences of offending Turkey, a key ally in the Middle East, local Armenians have praised the resolution, saying any fallout between Turkey and the U.S. will be short-lived.

“These are knee-jerk, hysterical reactions,” said Khatchig Mouradian, editor of The Armenian Weekly, which is based in Watertown. “Turkey is not a superpower and realizes full-well it needs the U.S.”

Mouradian said this summer’s controversy between Boston area Armenian and Jewish communities and the Anti-Defamation League helped to foster awareness of the issue. That controversy, which eventually led the national ADL to recognize the Armenian genocide, saw several Massachusetts towns cut ties with the ADL’s No Place for Hate program and the temporary firing of the organization’s regional director, Andrew Tarsy, who publicly dissented from the national position.

“The local controversy did not directly affect the resolution, but on an educational level, it was immensely important,” said Mouradian.

But political relations with Turkey were not the only concerns voiced by opponents of the resolution. Concerns about the safety of Jews worldwide also played a role in the ADL’s initial reluctance to recognize the massacre as genocide.

In a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post last week, the Jewish community of Turkey asked Congress to defeat the House resolution. The Turkish Foreign Ministry praised the nation’s Jews for opposing what it called an “unjust and erroneous” resolution.

Any reprisal by Turkey against Jewish interests should serve as a wake up call to American and Jewish alliances with the republic, according to James Russell, professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University.

“If Turkey responds by blaming the Jews for this when it’s fairly obvious that the Jewish community was cautious – if not overly cautious – then all it proves is how shaky that friendship with Turkey is,” said Russell.

Still, the ADL has continued to oppose a congressional resolution, calling such measures “counterproductive.” And others have questioned the wisdom of the local community’s support for the resolution since Armenia is aligned with countries that are antagonistic to Israel, like Iran and Syria, while Turkey is a strategic ally.

Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff cautioned this summer that the local community may be weighing in on a situation in which it cannot make the most informed decision. In a statement to the Advocate, the Rebbe said that diplomatic fallout with Turkey was inevitable.

“By taking the high moral ground, doing what is ‘right’ for others, and sacrificing pragmatic support for ourselves, we have once again shot ourselves in the foot for something which, after all, doesn’t really have much, if any, practical consequence anyway,” said the Rebbe.

But the resolution’s affect on international relations should not trump moral obligation, according to Nancy K. Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, who has been a staunch supporter of the resolution.

“We are always concerned for the safety of Jews and we are also vigilant about the [importance of] Turkish-Israeli and Turkish-U.S. relations,” said Kaufman. “These concerns must be taken seriously, but they cannot be an excuse for genocide denial.”

With Turkey recalling its ambassadors to the U.S., the fate of American military bases in Turkey is a pressing concern for U.S. officials. Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister Ali Babacan told the Jerusalem Post last week that Turkish ties with Israel as well as the U.S. would suffer if the resolution passed.

But despite looming political fallout for the U.S. and the Jewish state, Tarsy, ADL regional director, defended the organization’s decision to recognize the genocide.

“There obviously continue to be complicated political issues on the table,” said Tarsy. “The hope in all of this is for recognition of the very difficult history [in Turkey] and for reconciliation. I think that’s everyone’s hope.”

Serj Tankian: Genocide Resolution Is the First Step

2007-10-17T19:38:00.000-07:00

The Armenian Weekly
Oct. 16, 2007

BOSTON, Mass. (A.W.)-In an interview with Armenian Weekly editor Khatchig Mouradian at the Paradise Rock Club in Boston today, System of a Down’s frontman Serj Tankian spoke about the current the Armenian Genocide Resolution and the discussion it has generated.

“You can’t deny a genocide or holocaust based on political expediency. It makes absolutely no sense. If we claim as America that we’re a democracy then we have to look in the mirror and ask: Can we lie about a genocide or hold off its recognition for the sake of geopolitical or strategic gains or a military occupation that is unfair in itself? It’s trying to undo one mistake with another mistake and it doesn’t make sense,” Tankian said. “That’s why a lot of Congressmen are behind the resolution, and it passed [the House Foreign Relations] Committee and I’m confident that it will pass the House. And it’s got Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s support,” he added.

Tankian continued, “I feel like there’s always going to be an excuse. You know, we’ve waited 92 years, but ultimately I want to go further and say that recognition is not that important.

Recognition is one part of the just solution. If someone came to my house, killed my family and robbed my house, I’m not going to run after them for a hundred years and beg them to recognize that crime. That makes no sense. I’m going to take them to court and I’m going to loudly request justice, and that’s what needs to be done ultimately. But obviously, we all know that this is the first step, so we got to keep the goal in mind.”

Asked about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s statement that “The passage of this resolution indeed will be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East,” Tankian responded, “I’m scared of everything they’re trying to do in the Middle East. Maybe the resolution will help them put their asses in place.”

Orhan Pamuk: Armenian Genocide is a Moral Issue

2007-10-14T15:56:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
Oct. 12, 2007

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (A.W.)—Answering a question from the audience during his book reading organized by the Harvard Bookstore on Oct. 12, Turkish novelist and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk said that the Armenian genocide is a moral issue that needs to be discussed freely in Turkey.

The question read, “What do you think about the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the U.S. Congress?” Pamuk said, “I was expecting this question.” Interrupted by laughter from the audience, Pamuk continued, “Don’t worry, I’ll get out of it.”

“For me, it’s a moral issue, it’s a personal issue,” he went on to say. “For me it’s an issue of free speech, which we don’t totally have in Turkey. … The Turkish people should be able to freely discuss [this issue].”

Pamuk added, “I basically think it is upsetting that this issue is getting to be an arm-twisting issue [between states] rather than a moral or free speech issue in Turkey.

Pamuk was in Cambridge to read from his newly published book Other Colors: Essays and a Story (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007). He is the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature. In 2005, he was charged with “insulting Turkishness” under Turkey’s notorious Article 301 for saying in an interview with a Swiss magazine that “Thirty thousand Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody dares to talk about it.” The charges were later dropped.

‘The Resolution Speaks to the Survival of the Armenian People Today’

2007-10-06T16:35:00.000-07:00

Says Congressman Edward Royce
By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
October 6, 2007

WASHINGTON (A.W.)—The following interview with Congressman Edward R. Royce (R-Calif.) was conducted on Sept. 28 in his office in Washington. The video of the interview can be viewed on www.haireniktv.com.

Khatchig Mouradian—Congressman, where does the Genocide Resolution stand at this point and where do we go from here?

Edward Royce—Well, what we do now is what we did a few years ago when we got the bill out of committee. I’ve served on the Foreign Affairs Committee for a number of years, and I carried in the State Senate of California the first genocide resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide. We got that out of the California State Senate with a little help from our friend George Deukmejian, who was governor at the time.

Also, a few years ago we were able to actually get this very resolution on to the House floor. Now, at that point in time, President [Bill] Clinton contacted Speaker [Dennis] Hastert and they convinced the leadership not to bring it up on the House floor. But where we’re focused right now is explaining to the Members that the French have recognized the genocide, the Germans have recognized it, and for those of us who are Republicans, that Ronald Reagan, as president, recognized the genocide. It is time that we officially, as the Congress of the United States, do this. We’re in the process right now of talking to the members—and I’m working on the Republican side—in order to have the votes there if we can schedule this before committee.

K.M.—And why is it important for the U.S. Congress to recognize the Armenian genocide, an event that took place in a different part of the world 92 years ago?

E.R.—My father was involved during the Second World War with U.S. forces when they went into Dachau, the concentration camp. He actually took photographs, he was an amateur photographer. And ever since, he has been quite outspoken on the way in which the international community can be silent at times about genocide. One of the things he reminds people of is Hitler’s comment back to the chairman of the joint chief of staff in the Reich. And Hitler said, “Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

The reality is that history can repeat itself and will do so especially if we don’t get history right, and if we don’t have it acknowledged. And when you have something as horrific as the genocide in which over one and a half million Armenians perished in Western Anatolia and Turkey, when you have something on that scale and it is not acknowledged, there is the danger that it could be repeated.

This is also important to us because Armenia is struggling today, and here it is in the grips of an embargo imposed by Turkey and by Azerbaijan. They’re in a tough neighborhood and in the last three years we’ve seen Azerbaijan increase its defense budget 638 percent. If we wonder about how Armenia struggles in this environment, I’ll just share with you the index of economic freedom, which measures how much progress different countries make. It lists Turkey at 83rd in the world, while young Armenia is ranked 32nd. So you can see the amount of reform going on in that country, but at the same time you can see the discrimination, and you can see the high tariffs imposed by its neighbors in terms of goods and services getting in and out of the country. So this not only speaks to the past, it speaks to the survival of Armenia and the Armenian people today.

This is one of the reasons that we’ve been involved in efforts to try to champion the Millennium Challenge account, and as you know Armenia will receive over $235 million for its rural areas, for its agriculture, to help rebuild its roads. But at the same time, what we’re also trying to do is knock down that embargo.

And as you know, my friend, Congressman Crowley from New York and myself championed the legislation to explicitly prevent any funding for any rail line that goes through that region and bypasses Armenia. We’re going to continue to speak out for the truth and point out the obvious and use U.S. power and prestige and the fact that this country is based on an ideal—that ideal is freedom—in order not only to try to help Armenia today but to have the record books, the history books, properly record all over the world what happened. And frankly, when Congress speaks, it helps focus people’s attention on what is actually happening in the world.

K.M.—You’ve also been very active in speaking out against the genocide in Darfur. So what parallels do you see there?

E.R.—I took the actor Don Cheadle along with Paul Rusesabagina (who he portrays in the movie “Hotel Rwanda”) and a nightline television camera crew into Darfur, Sudan, and recorded the aftermath of an attack there. We went into the village of Tinei, which was once a vibrant community but now has a population of a handful of people. We talked to survivors of different attacks while we were there, and two documentaries were produced out of it on that genocide. Subsequently we were able to get a genocide resolution through the United Nations and passed it here through Congress. In so doing, we’ve now put enormous pressure on China to quit providing the arms. (Just as China provided the arms used by Rwanda in the genocide in Rwanda, they’re now providing the arms here.) And this kind of pressure, I think, can help mobilize the international community.

And let’s think again about the point President Reagan made when he recognized the Armenian genocide. He spoke of the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and then the genocide in Cambodia that took two million lives. And he was making the point that if we don’t speak out, history can repeat itself. Here it is today, repeating itself, with a radical fundamentalism that is driving the Janjaweed, and the Khartoum government is right behind it. The Khartoum government is actually involved in helping fund this. So again, to me, pointing these things out, and trying to educate people around the world and trying to get an admission as to what is happening is very, very important in terms of human rights. If you don’t get the past right, there’s a danger you’re not going to get the future right. And we should call the Armenian genocide for what it is: genocide.

K.M.—Congressman, what is your take on the recent letter signed by eight former Secretaries of State?

E.R.—If President Reagan could speak out, if the French National Assembly could speak out, if historians all around the world can speak out, it’s time for the U.S. Congress to speak out, regardless of what kind of angst that might cause to some in foreign affairs. I just think you try to do the right thing, and that’s what we need to do.

K.M.—Congressman, one of the issues being raised, especially in the Turkish media, is how the Genocide Resolution is being pushed forward by the Democrats. They often ignore the fact that the resolution enjoys bipartisan support. How can we make the case for that?

E.R.—I think people forget that it was under Republican majority that we actually got the resolution out of committee in the past. And it was under a Republican president, President Reagan, that the Armenian genocide was addressed. And so, as one who has labored long and hard on this, I’m well aware of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort. I would think anyone who is trying to claim otherwise is being a little political. And frankly, with these kinds of issues we should keep the partisan politics out of it. We’re talking about human rights, we’re talking about history here, and so I appreciate you asking that question because it’s good to get that history right, too. We passed that resolution out of the committee successfully with the help of Republicans and Democrats, when the Republicans were the majority.

‘Retain Confidence in Speaker Pelosi’

2007-10-06T16:30:00.000-07:00

Says Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
October 6, 2007

WASHINGTON (A.W.)—The following interview with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) was conducted on Sept. 28 in her office in Washington.

The video of the interview can be viewed on www.haireniktv.com.

Khatchig Mouradian—Congresswoman, now that we have 226 co-sponsors of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, what’s next?

Anna Eshoo—A few very important things need to be done. First, we want to keep getting co-sponsors, so this is not something that has ended. Every week I talk to members on the floor of the House to invite them to come on to the resolution, answer questions, etc. Very importantly, Congressman Tom Lantos from Northern California, who is the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, needs to schedule the bill for mark-up—that means that you write up the bill, it’s accepted by the committee, there’s a vote in the committee, and then it qualifies to come to the floor of the house for action. Now why is 226—and counting—important? Because the majority of the House is 218. We have to keep members on the legislation, not allow people to stray, not allow the Turkish lobby to affect members and peel them off of the legislation.

K.M.—The expectations are high, and it’s up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put the resolution to vote. Yet, she’s under a lot of pressure from lobby groups, the Tukish government and the State Department. How do you see this issue developing in the next few weeks?

A.E.—Well, the Armenian-American community should retain their confidence in Speaker Pelosi. She has always been on the resolution since she came to Congress, she’s been committed to the community and what needs to be done. She has spoken every year on it on the floor of the House, and now we are so proud that she is our Speaker. So she hasn’t changed her mind about the issue. It’s up to us to be able to pass it. The Speaker doesn’t tell people how to vote. … And then she likes to win. So we’re going to have to demonstrate that we have the votes on the floor in order to win. And we have all known from the very beginning—no one knows it better than the Armenian-American community—that this has always been tough. The opposition understands our position of strength now and they keep ratcheting up every day.

K.M.—Do you see any difference between the way the opposition operated previously and the way it’s operating now?

A.E.—There’s more money, and there’s more pressure.

K.M.—And what are your thoughts on the letter, signed by eight former Secretaries of State, which urges Speaker Pelosi to keep the resolution off the House floor?

A.E.—I have to tell you I’m not surprised. And the reason I’m not surprised is that each of those Secretaries of State are defending the policy that they implemented. We haven’t had one administration that was with us. This is how high the climb is. So while I would like to have had it be different, it’s not a surprise to me because every single administration has sided the other way. They have not been with us. That’s why we know that it’s up to us to launch this and to move it, and I think their sending this letter shows the power of the [Turkish] lobby. I mean there’s a lot of money in this. There’s a ton of money in this in plain English. So, yes, we’ve always known we have a tough fight. They’ve been successful for 25 years in the Congress, but I believe that we can change it and I believe that we will change it, and the reason for that is because it’s the right thing to do.

K.M.—Why is it important for the United States Congress to recognize a crime against humanity that took place 92 years ago in a different part of the world?

A.E.—The greatest strength that America has is her moral standing in the world. That has been and continues to be the most eloquent statement about who and what we are as a nation. And we have moved away from some of those values—very sadly, I must say—and that has chipped away at the credibility of the United States of America. Make no mistake about it, we are the mightiest in terms of military, we certainly are the most powerful economic force in the world, but without moral standing, you have a house that is essentially built on sand. So this is about who we are and what we stand for. And our human rights record and our recognition to correct not only history around the world, but our very own history. We had to fight to acknowledge that slavery was wrong in our country. So we have a very, very long record on this. And that’s why it is important. What did Hitler say? “Who will remember the Armenians?” We will!

K.M.—Congresswoman, this is a very important human rights issue, but it’s also a very personal issue for you. Can you talk about that?

A.E.—Well, as you know, I’m half Hye (Armenian) and half Assori (Assyrian). That’s a very powerful mixture for me because both sides of my family were persecuted and fled the region. When I saw that full-page ad in the New York Times taken out by the Turkish lobby saying, “Let’s settle this once and for all as to whether there was or was not a genocide, and have a commission...” Excuse me? Did my grandmother lie? I mean, I sat at her knee and she described the slaughter of her own family.

We’re not asking anyone for money. We’re simply stating that this be a fact that is set down and recognized by the American people. And I think the American people are way ahead of us. There isn’t any argument in my Congressional district or across the country as to whether this is something that took place. In fact, constituents are stunned that this is even a battle. And the battle is being waged against denial. I think that it would be a gift for the Turkish people and the Turkish government to get this behind them. This isn’t the present-day Turkey that did it, this was the Ottoman Empire, so yes, this is very, very close to me. It’s my family, it’s who I am, and it’s where I come from.

But this is also very important for our nation to recognize. And when you move from denial to truth, you’re free.

My Latest Interviews with Congressmen

2007-10-02T10:25:00.000-07:00

Watch interviews I conducted with five members of the US House of Representatives on September 28-29, 2007. the interviews are about the Armenian genocide resolution and related issues:
Congressman Joe Knollenberg:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip113.htm
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip109.htm
Congressman George Rodanovich:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip110.htm
Congresswoman Edward Royce:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip111.htm
Congressman Garret Scott:
http://www.hairenik.com/HairenikTV/HA_TV_Clip112.htm

What would Lemkin do?

2007-09-27T17:29:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian
The Jewish Advocate
Thursday September 27 2007
http://www.thejewishadvocate.com/this_weeks_issue/opinions/?content_id=3731

When dealing with ethnic cleansing and genocide, it would be useful to ask: What would Lemkin do? Had world leaders and human rights organizations asked that question and acted based on the answer over the past 50 years, several mass murders and genocides could have been prevented or stopped in Europe, Africa and Asia.

Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jew, coined the term “genocide” in 1944 based on the planned extermination of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 and the Jews during World War II. He worked tirelessly to have the United Nations pass a law on the prevention and punishment of that crime. Finally, on Dec. 9, 1948, the UN General Assembly ratified the Genocide Convention. Remembering that moment, Lemkin, who lost 49 relatives during the Holocaust, wrote: “Somebody requested a roll call. The first to vote was India. After her ‘yes’ there was an endless number of ‘yeses.’ A storm of applause followed. I felt on my face the flashlight of cameras. … The world was smiling and approving and I had only one word in answer to all that, ‘thanks.’”

Lemkin referred to the Armenian genocide on numerous occasions. In an article in the Hairenik Weekly (later the Armenian Weekly) on Jan. 1, 1959, he wrote that the suffering of the Armenians had paved the way to the ratification of the Genocide Convention: “The sufferings of the Armenian men, women, and children thrown into the Euphrates River or massacred on the way to [the Syrian desert of] Der-el-Zor have prepared the way for the adoption for the Genocide Convention by the United Nations. … This is the reason why the Armenians of the entire world were specifically interested in the Genocide Convention. They filled the galleries of the drafting committee at the third General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris when the Genocide Convention was discussed.”

At the end of the article, Lemkin asserted, “One million Armenians died, but a law against the murder of peoples was written with the ink of their blood and the spirit of their sufferings.”

Fast forward to 2007. The Anti-Defamation league, an organization that has tirelessly spoken out and acted against Holocaust denial, as well as more recent acts of genocide from Eastern Europe to Darfur, continues to speak with ambiguities about the Armenian genocide and oppose Congressional legislation affirming the historical record, considering it “counterproductive.”

Days after the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, was confronted on the issue, he wrote a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “to express our sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and people of Turkey in the past few days.”

Countless Jewish organizations, scholars, journalists, bloggers and activists have come out fiercely to criticize the ADL’s hypocrisy. They have all asked the right question – What would Lemkin do? – and have come up with the right answer, thus honoring Lemkin’s legacy.
Perhaps rather than rushing to appease the Turkish government, the ADL would do well to ask the right question, too.

Khatchig Mouradian is an Armenian journalist, poet and translator based in Boston. He is the editor of the Armenian Weekly.

Newton Human Rights Commission Ceases Participation in NPFH

2007-09-12T08:11:00.000-07:00

Town Refuses to be ‘In the Same Boat’ with ADL
By Khatchig Mouradian

NEWTON, Mass. (A.W.)—Generations of Americans converged at Newton City Hall on Sept. 11 to make their voices heard to the local Human Rights Commission (NHRC) meeting, which, after deliberations, unanimously voted to cut their ties with the ADL’s No Place for Hate (NPFH) program until the former unequivocally recognizes the Armenian genocide and supports H.R.106 in Congress, thereby affirming the historical record.

Commissioners and Advisory Council Members

In a letter dated Aug. 24, the NHRC had asked the ADL to recognize the Armenian genocide, actively support H.R.106 and rehire the ADL’s New England regional director Andrew Tarsy.
During the Sept. 11 meeting, commissioner Marianne Ferguson noted that although Tarsy has since been rehired, unequivocal recognition and support for the Genocide Resolution had not been achieved.

Advisory Council member Dianne Chilingerian expressed concern about the ADL’s position on the Genocide Resolution, which she considered inconsistent with its mission. She said that she is bothered by the ADL’s position as a human rights activist, and that this is not just an Armenian issue. Student Advisory council member David Fisher asked how we expect to end genocide campaigns today “when we still can’t recognize what happened 92 years ago.”

ADL Regional Board Members

Emphasizing that he was not speaking on behalf of the ADL, the organization’s NE Regional Board member Gerry Tishler said, “I have studied, thought and written about the Armenian genocide and it wasn’t ‘tantamount to genocide’ it was genocide. … I am also in favor of the U.S. government acknowledging and commemorating the Armenian genocide.” He noted that the meeting of the ADL’s national commissioners will discuss the issue in November, though said that continuing with the NPFH should not be based on that outcome. “If you make it conditional, you are making a bad mistake,” he said, noting how much the ADL has added to the town’s programs.

NE Regional Board member Beth Tishler also argued the importance of not dissociating from the NPFH, adding, “We have stood up and gone against our national leadership. We have heard you. The National ADL has heard you.”

ADL National commissioner David Apel said that ADL national director Abe Foxman “is not empowered” to support the Genocide Resolution, and that “your message will be brought forth to the national commissioners in November.” In response, members of the audience pointed out that while Foxman seems to be able to change his position daily on the Armenian issue, he needs the green light from the commissioners to properly acknowledge the truth about 1915.

“I reject the notion that we are misguided citizens,” continued Apel. He said the last few months had been a learning experience for him and many others, and that everyone in the room was in the same boat. “Give us time till November,” he added.

Members of the Audience

Newton residents, university professors, human rights activists, students, descendents of Armenian genocide and Holocaust survivors, spoke about the need to send the right message by severing ties with the ADL.

Newton resident David Boyajian, whose letter to the Watertown Tab sparked the ADL controversy, said that the “ADL’s [genocide] acknowledgement was thinly disguised denial,” and that its “verbal gymnastics show bad faith.” He stressed that the ADL will not change its position without pressure from the towns, and asked that Newton sever its ties immediately.
Newton resident Sonya Merian, whose mother was on one of the earliest Newton Human Rights commissions, read a letter by the ANC of Eastern Massachusetts addressed to the NHRC members and Newton mayor David Cohen. “Foxman apologized to the Prime Minister of Turkey for having put his government ‘in a difficult position,’ expressing his ‘sorrow over what we have caused for the leadership and people of Turkey.’ No apology to the heirs of Armenian Genocide survivors has been issued to date,” she said.

Prof. Jack Nusan Porter, treasurer of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), stressed the importance of severing ties with the ADL until Foxman resigns or changes course. “Turkey cannot harm a single hair of a single Jew,” he said, referring to Foxman’s stated concern that supporting the Genocide Resolution would harm the Turkish-Jewish community. “Is Israel, with its army, afraid of Turkey?” he asked.

Newton resident Nancy Akanian said she was startled that the NPFH has an annual re-certification process for all participating towns, and said the ADL was hardly in a position to grade anyone on their human rights performance.

“The ADL lacks the moral leadership and courage and any program sponsored by the ADL cannot be accepted,” said Newton resident Michael Mensoyan.

Newton resident and Armenian Youth federation (AYF) member Nora Kaleshian said, “My family and I are deeply hurt [by ADL’s practices],” expressing hope that it promotes the Human Rights of all people.

Prominent human rights activist and author of Our Bodies, Ourselves, Judy Norsigian, also from Newton, noted that “the time is ripe to make this a national issue.” She underlined the position and authority of Newton to send a strong message to the ADL by severing ties.

Newton resident Bethel Charkoudian introduced her father, a genocide survivor and thanked the NHRC for their stance. “My father survived the genocide and came here because he knew people understood his suffering,” she said.

Associate professor of philosophy at Worcester State College Henry Theriault said that while people were used to the denial of the Armenian genocide by Turkey, it was shocking to see a human rights organization engaging in the denial, adopting similar hate speech and lobbying against genocide recognition.

“There is no such thing as ‘degree of genocide,’” said Newton resident Salpi Sarafian. “The ADL has spoken in absolute clarity against Sudan, Bosnia and Afghanistan. They need to do the same regarding the Armenian genocide.”

In a poignant speech, activist Berge Jololian underscored the importance of realizing that recognizing the Armenian genocide is a moral issue and not a political one. “ADL was established in 1913, the Armenian genocide occured in 1915. ADL had 92 years to acknowledge this crime,” he said.

Activist Narini Badalian recounted her experience at a recent lecture by Foxman in New York. Badalian had confronted Foxman to say whether ADL’s position is consistent with that of a Human Rights organization. Foxman had responded, “It is up to you to decide.” Badalian urged, “It is time for us to decide.”

Activist Luder Sahagian made strong points about the failure of the ADL to “rigorously uphold settled history.” He said, “The ADL has yet to subscribe to the wisdom of the esteemed Rabbi Hillel, who many, many years ago advised, ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor…That is the entire law. All the rest is commentary.’”

Visiting professor of Armenian Genocide Studies at Clark University Dikran Kaligian said, “The ADL has made itself complicit in [Turkey’s] multi-million dollar denial campaign.” When the ADL controversy first broke, he explained, the ADL’s first reaction was not to approach the Armenian community but to hire a leading PR company. “Foxman does not see this as a moral issue, but a PR problem,” Kaligian said, adding, “We need to take the necessary steps for them to get the message.”

In an emotional speech, activist Alik Arzoumanian responded to the numerous calls on the NHRC and on Armenians to wait until the November meeting before deciding to sever ties. “We have been waiting all our lives,” she said, and explained how offended she was by Foxman’s claim that a Genocide Resolution was “counter-productive.” Foxman considers “our struggle to recover our dignity” to be counterproductive, she added. “I don’t want to give National ADL one more day.”

Mayor Cohen

Newton mayor David Cohen spoke next, and said that “there is a tremendous amount of common ground here.” He called the ADL National’s failure to “make a forthright statement” recognizing the genocide and supporting the resolution as “an ongoing injustice.”

“The resolution that we have in the U.S. Congress is one of the best pieces of legislation that deserves passage,” he said, referring to H.R.106. “It is incumbent on the ADL” to support it, he added.

In the same boat?

ADL Regional Board members emphasized several times during the meeting that everyone in the room was “on the same boat,” though they went on to say that suspending ties with the NPFH and ADL was not the answer. Asked to comment near the end of the meeting, however, Student Advisory Council member Fisher said, “Hearing the voices of the Armenian community and my own Jewish conscience, I cannot be in the same boat with you.”

The NHRC voted unanimously to cease participation in the NPFH, pending the ADL’s unambiguous recognition of the Armenian genocide and support of HR106.

Bedford Violence Prevention Coalition Demands Explanation from ADL

2007-09-04T17:07:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
September 4, 2007

BEDFORD, Mass. (A.W.)—On Sept. 4 at 7:30 a.m., the Bedford Violence Prevention Coalition (VPC) held its monthly meeting at the First Church of Christ Congregational with members of the Bedford Armenian community and activists from neighboring towns. The committee discussed the ADL’s ambiguous position on the Armenian genocide and decided to officially demand an explanation from the ADL. The committee agreed that it would then proceed accordingly, yet maintained that severing its ties with the ADL was still very much on the table.
During the meeting, members of the committee were briefed on the recent developments in the controversy surrounding the ADL. Armenian activists were then given the floor to speak.

Armenian Activists
Bedford resident Stephen Dulgarian spoke about the ADL’s opposition to the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the U.S. Congress and expressed his hope that Bedford would follow in the footsteps of Watertown, Newton and Newburyport by sending a strong message to the ADL. “We ask this committee to send a letter to the ADL demanding the unambiguous recognition for the Armenian genocide and support for the Genocide Resolution,” he said.

“I just lost a great uncle who was a survivor of the Armenian genocide,” said Bedford resident Mike Bahtiarian. He went on to criticize the ADL’s position on the genocide, underlining how its use of expressions like “tantamount to genocide” were deliberately unclear. Not supporting genocide recognition, he said, is “like not recognizing [the Holocaust during] World War II.”

“We would like to see this No Place for Hate committee continue its work independently of the ADL,” said activist Berge Jololian. “The ADL has lost its moral authority to lecture us on human rights. Denying any genocide is an act of hate and this community should have zero tolerance to it.” He noted that statement after statement, the ADL’s “hypocrisy is multiplying.” He rejected the ADL’s talk of a joint Turkish-Armenian commission to look into the history of 1915. “It is like saying that Elie Wiesel and David Irving should sit and discuss the history of the Holocaust. It’s outrageous!” he exclaimed.

Talking about ADL national director Abraham Foxman, Jololian said, “ADL has not apologized to the Armenian community or addressed any Armenian, however, Foxman offered an apology to the Turkish government for ADL’s statement recognizing the Armenian genocide.” Jololian was referring to a letter Foxman sent to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in which he said, “I feel deeply sorry over discussions that erupted after the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) changed its stance on the incidents of 1915.”

Petitto Devaney
Watertown councilor-at-large Marilyn Petitto Devaney spoke about the proclamation she introduced at the Watertown Town Council meeting. “I look at the proclamation as an act of lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness,” she said. Pettito Devaney recounted how the ADL had asked the Watertown Town Council for 90 days before making a decision about severing ties with the No Place for Hate program. “I wouldn’t even give them 90 seconds,” she said. Underlining that the Armenian genocide is not merely an Armenian issue, Petitto Devaney called on Bedford to sever its ties with the NPFH.

Police Chief
Police chief James Hicks said that long before coming to Bedford, he had worked with the ADL on several programs. “This summer has been quite eye-opening,” he said. “I feel embarrassed.”
“If the facts are facts, the ADL should state the facts clearly and back its statement with words and actions,” Hicks noted. “I have some serious reservations with the ADL. They need to explain their position,” he added.

Hicks and other members of the VPC noted that their committee was functioning years before its association with the NPFH and that good work can be done with—and if need be without—that association.

“We have some serious concerns and I would like to have the ADL here before taking action,” Hicks said. “But I have to say,” he added, “the present state of affairs jeopardizes NPFH’s position.”

‘Turkey Would Not Be Accepted in the EU if It Touches Even One Jew’

2007-08-27T18:43:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
August 27, 2007

WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)—The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) cites the security of the Jewish community in Turkey and Israel’s alliance with Turkey for why it has failed to unambiguously recognize the Armenian genocide and support its recognition by the U.S. Congress. Treasurer of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) Prof. Jack Nusan Porter believes the well being of the Jews in Turkey is not at stake.

“This is really just blackmail,” said Porter, author of “The Genocidal Mind” and “Facing History and Holocaust” in an interview with the Armenian Weekly. “Turkey would never touch the Jewish community. It would never be accepted in the European Union if it touched any Jew in Turkey. The real question is: Why does this blackmail work? Why do people believe it? In February of this year, Turkish officials met with Jewish groups here in America and put out the word. Most of the Jewish leaders disagreed, but some of them—like the ADL leader [Abraham Foxman]—didn’t,” he added.

Porter underscored the importance of “educating” Israel in these issues. “We, American Jews, have to educate Israel. It’s just the opposite of what it was historically. The Israelis had to teach us how to be Jewish. Now, we are going to have to teach them how to be a good Jew: Take care of all people, not only yourself.”

Turkey’s pressure on Israel regarding the Armenian genocide issue is not new, he explained. “In 1979, Israel Charny [former IAGS president and editor of “The Encyclopedia of Genocide”] organized a conference in Tel Aviv. The Turkish government put pressure on the Israeli government not to send anybody to that conference. They’ve been pressuring Israel for all these years,” said Porter.

Talking about how the Jewish community supports the recognition of the Armenian genocide, Porter said, “The right wing, ultra-nationalistic, conservative forces support what’s good for Israel and do not interfere—even oppose—everything else. But most of the Jews in this country are universalistic and recognize the genocide.” He added, “There was a good coordination of Jewish and Armenian pressure. I hope it brings the two communities even closer together.”

On Genocide and the ADL, With Four Members of Local Armenian and Jewish Media

2007-08-27T18:36:00.000-07:00

08/26/2007
Source: go-NEWz.com
Reporter: M. Thang

The Anti-Defamation League’s previous stance of not acknowledging the the Armenian genocide — in addition to its current opposition of a pending resolution in the U.S. Congress to recognize the tragedy — has unleashed a torrent of controversy over the past several days in the Boston area.
Learn what four people — from the Armenian Weekly; the Jewish Advocate; the Jewish Journal; and Web-based Armenian-language TV and radio, at hairenik.com, have to say.

On Genocide and the ADL, With Four Members of Local Armenian and Jewish Media
by M. Thang

Over one million Armenians were murdered at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923. The Anti-Defamation League, an organization that fights anti-Semitism and bigotry, has upheld its longtime policy of not recognizing the mass killings as genocide.
In addition, the ADL does not support a resolution of the U.S. Congress that acknowledges the murders as genocide.
The ADL policy has unleashed a torrent of controversy in the Boston area over the past two weeks.
The town council of Watertown, Mass., home to over 8,000 Armenians, voted to pull out of the ADL’s anti-bigotry “No Place for Hate Program,” in protest against the ADL’s stance on the Armenian genocide. The pullout has prompted other Boston-area towns and cities to consider severing their ties, too, with the ADL program.
In the face of growing outrage of local Armenian and Jewish communities, the national ADL partially reversed its policy last week — officially declaring that the mass murders are “indeed tantamount to genocide.”
The ADL has not reversed its policy regarding the congressional resolution to acknowledge the genocide. To do so would be “counterproductive,” it says, adding that such a policy reversal could jeopardize the safety of Jews in Turkey, an important and rare Muslim ally to Israel.
However, the ADL’s New England regional office moved last week to support the resolution, putting it — as well as other Jewish organizations — sharply at odds with the ADL leadership under national director Abraham Foxman.
The Boston Globe has been reporting on the controversy almost every day, sometimes as page-one news, over the past several days.
On August 23, the ADL told New England Ethnic News that the matter of supporting the resolution will be on the agenda of the ADL’s policy-making panel when it convenes in November.
New England Ethnic News spoke to four people from Armenian and Jewish media in the Boston area about the ongoing ADL controversy:
· Khatchig Mouradian, editor of the Armenian Weekly
· Raphael Kohan, staff writer at the Jewish Advocate
· Jirayr Beugekian, manager of online radio and Web TV at Armenian-language Web site hairenik.com.
· Bette Keva, editor of the Jewish Journal.

The national ADL has decided now to use the word “genocide.” In addition, it will consider supporting Congress’ resolution that recognizes the Armenian genocide. Is that good enough?
KM: The wording of the ADL’s statement [that officially recognizes the Armenian genocide] may not be perfect, but it still constitutes recognition. However...it states that ADL does not support the Armenian genocide resolution in Congress, saying that that would be counterproductive. That is the main problem being underlined by the Armenian community, individuals interested in human rights in general, and the Jewish community....It is quite disturbing. It’s very upsetting for ADL to recognize the genocide but, at the same time, lobby against the genocide resolution in Congress.
RK: I think some of the Jewish organizations who had been pressing [the ADL] were very happy to hear that Abe Foxman shifted his stance on the term “genocide,” and they saw that as a big step. However, I think some of the members of the Armenian community see this merely as a ploy for Foxman to get everybody who has been hammering him on this issue to shut up about it, to sort of placate [them].
So I think the Armenian community really wants to hear him vocally support the resolution — or at least those who see him as opposing it..., to stop doing what they see him doing in opposition.
JB: Using the word “genocide” just to describe the genocide as “genocide” is not enough. Any genocide, any crime needs to have consequences. One of the consequences of the genocide is supporting the genocide resolution in Congress. That’s why just using the word “genocide” is not enough for us.
BK: The ADL is going to consider the resolution pending in Congress. [The ADL] was forced to do this, and [the ADL] is finally coming in line with the thinking of many, many people. This past week was an extraordinary week of Armenians, Jews, and the general public putting a great deal of pressure on the ADL....We [Jews and Armenians] would lose confidence in [the ADL] if [the ADL] were not to do this. Jews and Armenians would find their stance against bigotry rather hypocritical.

Should Jews in Turkey feel abandoned as a result of the push for the Congress’ resolution?
KM: Turkish officials have made several statements in the past saying that they have been insulted by statements that talk about the dangers against the Jewish community in Turkey. I believe ADL is actually using this [argument] as a scapegoat...just to distance itself from recognizing the Armenian genocide properly and supporting it in Congress.
If [the Jews in Turkey] are [threatened], the ADL should have campaigned against Turkey and should have a campaign of tolerance in Turkey — instead of actually denying the Armenian genocide and perpetuating this problem by not supporting the [resolution].
RK: I don’t really know that much about Jews in Turkey. The only thing that I’ve heard coming from them during this whole [controversy] is a letter that was drafted by the Jewish community in Turkey, that was then presented via the American Jewish Committee and Turkish Foreign Minister in Washington, D.C., earlier this year, to heads of national Jewish organizations. The letter asked those heads to please consider their well-being for this resolution, which was implying that they felt it was a bad move for their own safety.
I don’t know whether that letter was, in fact, drawn up of their own volition or if it was coerced out of them. I’ve had people suggest to me both. [The suggestion was that they were being coerced] by the Turkish government. That’s not anyone saying that for certain, just [that] the suggestion was that Turkey wanted to give the impression that this was another factor.
JB: No, they shouldn’t feel let down or anything like that because nobody is asking for that. Did the Germans feel let down or anything else when the Holocaust [was] recognized or when people remember the Holocaust? A crime was committed more than 90 years ago. What we’re asking for is the recognition of that crime and the appropriate compensation for that crime — [recognition] by the entire world, including and most basically by Turkey.
The compensation we expect is not from the world. The compensation we expect and demand is from Turkey, nobody else. The compensations we have in mind are financial compensation; moral compensations, which is the recognition; and territorial compensation.
BK: No, because I don’t think it is the ADL’s stance on this issue that is going to mean security or insecurity for the Jewish people in Turkey.

According to the Boston Globe, Abraham Foxman didn’t want to alienate Turkey, a rare Muslim ally, from its neighbor, Israel. What’s wrong with that?
KM: We have to acknowledge that Israel and Turkey are very good and strong allies. And it’s important for Israel to maintain this strategically-important alliance with Turkey. It is up to Israel to decide on the nature of its relationship with its neighbors, including Turkey. However, a human rights organization...functioning in the United States — which states as its principles fighting against bigotry, fighting for tolerance, and which carries the legacy of the victims of the Holocaust — is not allowed to deny the Armenian genocide, to belittle or trivialize the Armenian genocide or even say that it should not be recognized by this Congress...or this [or that] world body.
ADL should not act as a state thinking about its own interests. This is such a huge human rights issue when you argue...against the recognition of another people’s genocide. I cannot see anything worse than this, not recognizing the genocide....The ADL is still trying to balance between pleasing the Turkish government and actually doing the right thing.
RK: I think some people don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Most people understand — who are thinking about this from both the Jewish community and the Israeli perspective, they understand that it has to be taken under consideration. I think locally it’s such a huge issue because there is such a large Armenian American community whom the Jewish community in Boston has very close ties to. In addition to that, there is also the moral imperative, it seems, of calling a genocide, a genocide.
But at the same time, I think taking that into consideration is something that most Jewish organizations realize that they have to do. They have to consider the implications concerning Turkey. It seems that most of them realize that that is a reality of the Middle East. It is a consideration. At the same time, they may feel a moral imperative to recognize the genocide.
JB: We believe that is a really childish way of putting things. We have Armenian communities living in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all these countries. Does that mean that as Armenians we have to decry the Holocaust or say the Holocaust did not happen? Or we do not support any kind of recognition or compensation of the Holocaust? That is really childish.
BK: (pauses) It’s really not his place [to be getting involved in this kind of foreign relations]. He is not a politician. He’s not making policy. It is sort of a non sequitur that he would be alienating Turkey, and there’s no reason why that should be an element in ADL’s decision on labeling these [Armenian] atrocities what they are.

Should towns and cities that are part of the ADL’s “No Place For Hate” Program continue to be a part of it?
KM: As long as the ADL has not come out to clearly recognize the genocide and support the congressional resolution — I’m not even talking about lobbying against it...I believe the “No Place for Hate” program...is inherently and illogically going against the “No Place for Hate” program. It is promoting hatred by not recognizing the genocide and by not recognizing the suffering of the victims and the [congressional] resolution [that]...recognizes the genocide.
RK: I think that’s up to them. It seems that a lot of what I’ve read, that a lot of towns that have been involved with “No Place for Hate” have really been inactive for many years. It’s sort of been a symbol on a street sign outside of the city hall somewhere. But if towns feel it’s hypocritical for them to have this program in their town, then that’s something that they have to reckon with.
But what it seems is that all the towns are happy to have a program like the ADL’s “No Place for Hate” in their community and feel it’s important to have it. Whether it is actually “No Place for Hate” or a program of their own construction, is something now being discussed.
JB: Being part of “No Place for Hate,” in terms of [its] connection with the ADL, if local towns and cities feel that they need to sever their ties with the ADL, but continue the program in another way, we fully support [those towns and cities]....We believe the cities are doing the correct thing by severing their ties with the ADL. The program, “No Place for Hate,” can be copied or repeated in all the cities in a myriad of manners without it being tied to the ADL specifically.
BK: I think they should definitely continue to be a part of the ADL’s “No Place for Hate,” especially now that the ADL and Foxman have relented [and because of] our showing a willingness to listen to the criticism and to act on it. Watertown got out [of the “No Place for Hate” program]. It was very painful for Watertown to do what they did. And they did so only after it was clear that Foxman was not [changing his] position. But now that Foxman has changed his position, I’m not sure what Watertown’s position at this point is. But I don’t think other towns should do the same thing, especially at this point.

The Armenian genocide happened over 85 years ago. Granted, the Boston area — Watertown in particular — has one of the largest Armenian populations in the country — but why now has this controversy had such a great impact?
KM: The people who are actually outraged, when they expressed their outrage, they did not imagine that this issue was going to be such a huge issue. It is the ADL that made it bigger and bigger. What happened first was that there was an Armenian writer, David Boyajian, who wrote a letter to the Watertown Tab, quoting a statement from Abraham Foxman denying the Armenian genocide. That’s how this controversy erupted. Armenians started writing other letters to the Watertown Tab. Before you know it, there was this outrage in the Armenian community in Watertown and beyond.
After that, statement after statement [from the ADL was issued]...denying the genocide and speaking against the congressional resolution, which made the issue even bigger....The entire issue [began with] outrage by Armenians because of a quote by Foxman. However, the ADL perpetuated this by their own statement.
BK: Because Israel is in a very vulnerable position. The MIddle East is more a powder keg than it usually is, and Foxman and the ADL are very sensitive to the safety of Jews there. But I think this is a case [in which] they need to relent and let the politicians work on this.
Why it’s become a problem now? It’s coming to the fore. There’s the [pending] legislation in Congress, and people want answers [about whether or not the Congress will pass the resolution]. It’s been an issue for a long, long time but possibly now because it is in Congress, and people have to go on record one way or the other. It’s become an issue.
JB: Because it’s very clear now what the ADL did and what Foxman did...[to the] community. It’s really weird when, [regarding] the Watertown Town Council..., we [Armenians] suddenly found ourselves in the middle of world politics. As Armenians, we’re unhappy that Watertown is in that situation. But we have been pushing for the recognition...for over 90 years now. What Foxman did, and the way that it was pursued, it blew over, and it is continuing to blow over....It’s not a matter of why now. This matter [has been] growing year after year after year.
The [Armenian genocide] survivors who came to the U.S. and...other countries in the world — they were dispersed — the survivors did not know the languages of the local countries, were not accustomed to the way local politics works....After all those years, the new generations [have grown] up and [are] taking over [through] activism, community organization....They are now American Armenians, or French Armenians, or Greek Armenians. They know the [local country’s] language, they are well versed in the local politics, they know how to play within the local political arena.
RK: From what I understand, it’s bubbling to the surface now because there seems to be a real shot for the congressional resolution to be heard and voted on in Congress, which has been sort of shuttled back and forth behind the scenes for many years now without getting much play.
There’s also, it seems, concern within the Armenian American community, that it is important for those few remaining survivors of the Armenian genocide to have this recognition while they’re still alive.

Briefly, is there anything else you’d like to say?
KM: Tens of thousands of Armenians, after the genocide, fled to the United States....We have few [survivors of the genocide] left. It is only right for the U.S. Congress to honor those survivors by recognizing the Armenian genocide....This issue has become such a huge and important issue nationwide. The ADL should reconsider its position and align itself with its own stated principles and recognize the Armenian genocide unambiguously and support the genocide resolution in the Congress.
RK: It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m still learning as this goes along.
JB: The pursuit of the recognition of the genocide [within the Armenian community] is much better organized now than it was 40 or 45 years ago, or even 30 years ago when [Armenian] people used to get together and just remember the [genocide] victims....[through] commemorations at church. Now it’s not commemoration in the church anymore; it’s commemoration with political goals, with political activism. This is why the pursuit is gaining more and more momentum, especially now that we also have a free and independent republic of Armenia whose government also has the genocide as part of its foreign policy.
BK: I don’t think so.

Source: go-NEWz.com

Copyright 2007 NEWz. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the expressed permission by the news source. Contact us for more information.

Genocide and Holocaust Scholars Criticize ADL Position on Armenian Genocide

2007-08-24T13:01:00.000-07:00

By Khatchig Mouradian

WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)—On Aug. 23, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released a statement that reiterated its objection to the Armenian Genocide Resolution pending in Congress and continued to ambiguously recognize the Armenian genocide by calling “for further dispassionate scholarly examination of the details of those dark and terrible days.”

“The force and passion of the debate today leaves us more convinced than ever that this issue does not belong in a forum such as the United States Congress,” the statement read.

“We must encourage steps to create an atmosphere in which Armenia will respond favorably to the several recent overtures of Turkey to convene a joint commission to assist the parties in achieving a resolution of their profound differences,” it continued.

Several genocide and Holocaust experts expressed outrage over the idea of convening with Turkish state historians who have made a career out of denying and trivializing the Armenian genocide. When Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested the idea of a “joint commission” a few years ago, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) sent an open letter to Erdogan saying, “We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide. … We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars.”

Genocide and Holocaust scholars in the U.S. and Europe, contacted by the Armenian Weekly today, harshly criticized the ADL’s statement as well as its hypocritical approach to the Armenian genocide in general.

“ADL is getting into the issue a bit late to be of any substance," said Dr. Stephen Feinstein, director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota. "Furthermore, by Foxman saying there was a need to protect the Turkish-Jewish community, the question is, protect from what if they have lived as a loyal minority for 500 years? This suggests that the ADL is missing the point and cannot be part of the discourse,” he added.

“A commission now would be a disaster. The Turkish state must make clear that they have a very strong intention to resolve this issue. The rhetoric of the Turkish authorities is not conducive of a solution. As long as people like Yusuf Halacoglu—a very radical, nationalist, even racist historian—Gunduz Aktan and Sukru Elekdag give the tone for the policy of Turkish government, I don’t think that you can reach any result from a commission,” said Turkish-born historian and sociologist Taner Akcam, author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian genocide and the Question of Turkish responsibility. “For them the commission would be the continuation of the war they are waging against the Armenians, whom they consider as the enemy,” he added.

“We don’t need a historical commission. We need historians to have completely free and open access to the archives in Turkey so scholars and anyone else can research, write and talk about this history without fear of intimidation,” said Professor Eric Weitz, author of A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation. “That is the key issue: free and open debate without intimidation from the state and from anti-democratic organizations that are allowed to operate with the tacit support of the state.”

“Furthermore, not the regional ADL leader [Andy Tarsy] but Abraham Foxman should be fired," Weitz added. "He should have been fired a long time ago for many other statements and comments in addition to his long-standing refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide.”

“I’m entirely in agreement with Eric Weitz on the access [to archives] and free debate,” said Dr. Donald Bloxham of the University of Edinburgh who was recently awarded the 2007 Raphael Lemkin prize for his book The Great game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians.

“And I reject the silly commission idea,” Bloxham added.

Regional Board urges ADL National to reinstate Tarsy

2007-08-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

By Raphael Kohan

The Jewish Advocate
Thursday August 23 2007

Committee also calls for vote to address congressional resolution
The New England Region of the Anti-Defamation League adopted two resolutions in an early-morning meeting Wednesday to address the rift between its office and national headquarters.
The resolutions, adopted unanimously – apart from one abstention – called for the reinstatement of fired Executive Director Andrew H. Tarsy and urged the national office to address whether it should take a “pro-active position” in a congressional resolution acknowledging the Armenian genocide.

Neither Tarsy nor National Director Abraham H. Foxman were present at the meeting, which was attended by about 70 board members.

“Everyone wants to move on,” Regional Board Chairman James Rudolph told the Advocate. “Our board is clear that we want to have Andy reinstated, if that’s possible.”

Speaking to the Advocate from Israel prior to Wednesday’s meeting, Combined Jewish Philanthropies President Barry Shrage said reinstating Tarsy would restore unity to the community.

“I think it will help the healing process in Boston, especially because the issue it stemmed from has been resolved,” he added.

Earlier this week, Foxman said Tarsy “fired himself” when he publicly dissented from national policy. Foxman also described Tarsy’s future with the organization as a management decision and “nobody’s business.”

Wednesday’s resolutions mark the latest development in the ongoing controversy that began in Watertown last month. On Tuesday, after mounting criticism and a community backlash, national ADL reversed its position on the massacre of Armenians during World War I, recognizing the events as genocide. Foxman explained in a statement that the organization changed its stance after he consulted with Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel and other historians.
The move came after dozens of Boston Jewish organization, spearheaded by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, signed onto a community statement that called on the ADL national office to “reconsider their position on this issue.”

Many local Jewish leaders welcomed the change from national ADL.

“This is a huge step forward,” said Nancy K. Kaufman, executive director of the JCRC. “The key issue here was the issue of genocide, and the change is important and positive.”

Those close to the matter said it was unusual for Jewish organizations to break ranks and publicly condemn a fellow Jewish group. JCRC’s community statement represented a shift in handling ideological disputes.

“I thought that was so hurtful and destructive,” said Foxman of the community statement. “I didn’t know any other way to stop this avalanche, which will undermine the Jewish community.”
Foxman’s new position on the term genocide, however, did not include a shift in the organization’s stance on a congressional resolution surrounding the genocide, which Foxman described as “counterproductive.”

“The significance of putting [the congressional resolution] on the national agenda is it provides an opportunity to discuss the resolution,” said Rudolph. “Personally, I’ve learned that the resolution is a very complex issue. It will be debated nationally.”

One of the recent challenges for the ADL has been reconciling its mission statement, which reads, “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people … to secure justice and fair treatment to all,” with its real-life policy. Prior to his dramatic reversal, critics called Foxman’s stance hypocritical, since he protects the memory of the Holocaust but refused to acknowledge the genocide of another people.

“Sometimes these missions are in conflict,” said Foxman.

Board Member Jason Chudnofsky suggested that Foxman needs to clarify the mission of the ADL.

“He’s gotten himself into a real challenge right now on his own mission statement,” said Chudnofsky.

Regardless of how Wednesday’s resolutions are handled by the national office, this controversy represented a blow to the ADL, according to Jonathan Sarna, professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University.

“I think this issue will weaken both the local and national organizations and will be looked upon as a case study of how not to deal with an issue of this sort,” said Sarna.

Meanwhile, Newton, Lowell and Arlington may follow Watertown’s lead in severing ties with the ADL-sponsored program No Place for Hate.

Khatchig Mouradian, editor of the Armenian Weekly Newspaper, said ADL’s new stance will have little impact on improving relations between the Armenian community and the human rights organization.

“There’s still a lot of outrage,” said Mouradian.

But what shouldn’t go unnoticed, he added, is the role of the Jewish community in prompting ADL’s changed stance.

“This recognition would not have been possible without the support of many righteous Jews and the Jewish community in general,” said Mouradian. “I hope this support continues until the ADL starts working for the resolution or at least stops working against it. I don’t want to give Abe Foxman a medal for recognizing the Armenian genocide after so many years of denying it.”

Theft

2007-08-18T08:08:00.001-07:00

THEFT

By Khatchig Mouradian

Creeping up the window of eternity
I just stole joy's virginity.

Pour its light into your glasses,
And while the smoke of desire
Is still rushing through my veins,
Let my ecstasy, like a newborn,
Drink right from the breasts of victory...
And behold! The neighboring roofs
Hunched with envy
Bear witness to my glory:
Creeping up the window of eternity
I just stole joy's virginity...

Answer

2007-08-18T08:07:00.000-07:00

ANSWER

By Khatchig Mouradian

You talk to me of passion,
Of lines dripping with desire,
Yet nothing is left but ashes...
I've rented to resignation
The vacant apartment of Fire.

With the candlelight of craze
I never found tempests tender,
But still loitered with limping days
In the subway of dusty calendars.

Do not ask me of Lust,
Of ink gushing like semen,
My words are still-born children
Who've had no chance of dreaming.

Look elsewhere for lava,
And papers dipped in craving,
Mine are sketches of withdrawal
On the canvas of lost heaven.

In seinem neuen Buch 'Targeting Iran' interviewt David Barsamian Chomsky, Abrahamian und Mozaffari

2007-08-14T10:23:00.000-07:00

Ziel Iran
In seinem neuen Buch 'Targeting Iran' interviewt David Barsamian Chomsky, Abrahamian und Mozaffari
von Khatchig Mouradian
07.08.2007 — ZNet

"Frag nicht nach der Ernte sondern nach dem Pflügen", lautet ein chinesisches Sprichwort. In seinem Buch 'Targeting Iran' beherzigt der preisgekrönte Journalist David Barsamian genau diesen Rat.

Er fragt seine Interviewgäste Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian und Nahid Mozaffari nach jenem Hegen und Pflegen, das schließlich in die Dämonisierung des Iran durch die USA kulminiert ist - ein wechselseitiger Prozess zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und dem Iran (seit der Islamischen Revolution im Iran 1979).

David Barsamian ist Gründer und Direktor des 'Alternative Radio'. Seine Hörer/innen und Leser/innen wissen, was sie erwarten können: direkte, präzise Fragen. Meist bietet Barsamian zum Einstieg zudem einige Hintergrundinformationen. Barsamian sät (um im bäuerlichen Bild zu bleiben) Einblicke in die komplexe und intrigante Welt einer Region, die seit langem unter jenen zu leiden hat, die auf den Altären der Übersimplifizierung, Trivialisierung, Kontextlosigkeit usw. huldigen.

In seiner Einleitung bringt Barsamian die Geschichte des Iran und der iranisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen kurz auf den Punkt.

Er schließt mit den Lieblingszeilen der Friedensnobelpreisträgerin Shirin Ebadi. Sie klingen zutreffend - hinsichtlich der amerikanischen Außenpolitik aber auch hinsichtlich der Situation im Iran:

"Wenn es keine Gerechtigkeit gibt,

könnten jene, denen sie vorenthalten wird,

eines Tages auf die Straße gehen und sich erheben."

(Zitat des berühmten persischen Dichters Hafez aus dem 14. Jahrhundert)

Das erste der drei Interviews - das kürzeste - führte David Barsamian mit Noam Chomsky. Barsamian hat Chomsky schon einige dutzend Mal interviewt. Glanzpunkte sind fünf gemeinsame Bücher. In 'Targeting Iran' spricht Chomsky über die amerikanische Politik gegenüber dem Iran. Diese sei beispielhaft für die Logik der präventiven Selbstzerstörung: "Unter Zugrundelegung der amerikanischen Standards müsste der Iran ja eigentlich Terroranschläge in den USA verüben. Im Grunde müssten wir sie sogar dazu auffordern - falls wir diese Standards für uns übernehmen. Sie (die Iraner) stehen unter einer viel gewaltigeren Bedrohung, als sie Bush und Blair je konstruiert haben. Angeblich berechtigt das zu dem, was diese Leute als "antizipatorische Selbstverteidigung" - in erster Linie Angriffe - bezeichnen.".

Zum Thema Wiederaufnahme des iranischen Urananreicherungsprogramms sagt Chomsky: "Sie brauchen nur in den Medien zu recherchieren und werden feststellen, wie häufig davon die Rede war, der Iran habe die Urananreicherung erst wieder aufgenommen, nachdem die Europäer ihren Teil der Abmachung nicht eingehalten hatten, vor allem hinsichtlich fester Sicherheitsgarantien". Chomsky erhebt den Vorwurf, die Presse habe vom Rückzieher der Europäer - unter Druck Amerikas - gewusst, aber die Story lieber ignoriert.

Das Chomsky-Interview konzentriert sich (schwerpunktmäßig) auf den Iran. Chomskys Analysen und Beispiele sind für uns Leser eine Art Achterbahnfahrt über fast 50 Jahre. Die Fahrt führt uns von den Vereinigten Staaten über Südamerika, Europa, Palästina, Irak bis nach China. Kaum überraschend: Wie ein alter Magier zaubert Chomsky vor dem staunenden Publikum immer neue Argumente und Beispiele aus seinem Hut (sprich: Gedächtnis), locker und in Bestform. Allerdings hätten einige Fußnoten und redaktionelle Anmerkungen (Prozentzahlen, exakte Daten) dem Interview gut getan. So sagt Chomsky an einer Stelle beispielsweise: "Ich habe die exakte Zahl vergessen, aber ich glaube, es (China) bezieht 10 bis 15 Prozent seiner Energieimporte aus Saudi-Arabien." Oder: "Er (Muqtada al-Sadr, der irakische Schiitengeistliche und Politiker, der sich gegen die US-Präsenz stellt) errang in den letzten Parlamentswahlen ich denke so um die 50 Prozent".

In 'Targeting Iran' ist Chomsky für den politisch-historischen Kontext zuständig. Er bereitet so die Bühne für den iranischstämmigen Geschichtsprofessor Ervand Abrahamian, der schwerpunktmäßig über das Atomthema spricht.

"Falls der Iran aus der Luft angegriffen wird, schlägt er zurück, wo er Oberwasser hat: im Irak und in Afghanistan", sagt Abrahamian und fügt hinzu: "Sie würden offensichtlich nicht die USA oder Israel angreifen, obwohl die Leute das, in ihrer Paranoia, annehmen."

Abrahamian glaubt, der Grund, weshalb Irans Präsident Mahmoud Ahmadinedschad den 'Holocaust' leugnet oder zur Zerstörung Israels aufruft, sei der Versuch der Überbrückung der Kluft zwischen Schiiten und Sunniten. Zudem versuche Ahmadinedschad, "arabische Unterstützung zu erhalten". Ahmadinedschads Rhetorik entfalte seine Wirkung weniger im Iran als auf der 'arabischen Straße'.

Nach der Verbindung zwischen Teheran und der bewaffneten schiitischen Hisbollah-Miliz im Libanon gefragt, antwortet Abrahamian, der Iran setze die Hisbollah-Partei nicht ein, um Israel zu zerstören. "Ein Hauptfehler der Israelis ist, dass sie glauben, die Hisbollah sei so eng mit dem Iran verzahnt, dass im Falle eines US-Angriffs auf Iran, Letzterer automatisch die Hisbollah gegen Israel* einsetzen werde. Ich denke nicht, dass etwas Derartiges geplant ist".

Nach den ersten beiden Interviews hat man den Eindruck, das Buch werfe zwar einen kritischen Eindruck auf die amerikanische Außenpolitik, biete aber kaum Einblick in die innere Dynamik des Iran. Im dritten Interview - mit dem iranischstämmigen Historiker Nahid Mozaffari - führt uns Barsamian jedoch auf eine lebendige literarische Reise in den Iran (es gibt dort TATSÄCHLICH Literatur!). Die Reise beginnt im frühen 20. Jahrhundert und endet in unsere Zeit. Das Spektrum reicht von Gedichten, über Novellen bis zu Memoiren. Dissidenten und Frauen kommen zu Wort. Mozaffari sagt, iranische Autoren, die die USA besuchen, würden sich behandelt fühlen wie "Menschenrechts-Versuchstiere". Aber er schreibt auch über die Zensur, die Unterdrückung und Verfolgung im Iran sowie über den Aufstieg des Bloggings. Mozaffari spricht über Details zu Frauenthemen (wie Scheidung, Sorgerechts- und Eigentumsrechtsprobleme, Kleiderregeln etc.). Er spricht über die Entwicklung des iranischen Kinos in der Zeit nach 1979 und über das Vorgehen gegen Rockgruppen und Rapper unter der Regierung Ahmadinedschad.

"Die islamistischen Konservativen halten Entwicklungen in der Zivilgesellschaft für etwas Bedrohliches, zudem sei diese anfällig für Manipulationen vom Ausland", erklärt Mozaffari.

Die Schlusszeilen des letzten Interviews bringen eine der Kernaussagen des Buches auf den Punkt: "Die enorme Entschlossenheit derer, die im Iran Veränderung wollen und ihre nicht minder starke Entschlossenheit, sich von Manipulation und Druck von außen nicht beeinflussen zu lassen, sollte den USA und anderen Staaten, die über eine Militäraktion gegen den Iran nachdenken, als ernste Warnung dienen".

'Targeting Iran' - David Barsamian im Interview mit Noam Chomsky, Erand Abrahamian und Nahid Mozaffari (City Light Books, 2007).

Khatchig Mouradian ist ein libanesisch-armenischer Journalist, Autor und Übersetzer. Er lebt derzeit in Boston. khatchigm@hotmail.com

Anmerkung d. Übersetzerin

*'Iran' steht im Original - offensichtlich ein Flüchtigkeitsfehler des Autors

Orginalartikel: Targeting Iran
Übersetzt von: Andrea Noll

'Targeting Iran': A Book Review

2007-08-14T10:17:00.000-07:00

ZNet | Activism

Targeting Iran
A book review

by Khatchig Mouradian; August 07, 2007

“Do not ask about the harvest; ask about the plowing,” says the Chinese proverb. In Targeting Iran, award-winning journalist David Barsamian follows that advice. He asks his interviewees, Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian and Nahid Mozaffari, about all the plowing and planting that culminated in the demonization of Iran by the U.S. since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and vice versa.

Alternative Radio founder and director Barsamian’s listeners and readers know what to expect: clear, straightforward questions, often preceded by some background information—and to borrow imagery from farming one more time—sowing insight into the intricacies and complications of a region that has long suffered in the hands of those worshipping at the altars of oversimplification, trivialization, decontextualization et al.

In his introduction, Barsamian provides a brief history of Iran and U.S.-Iranian relations. He concludes by quoting Iran’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi’s favorite couplet, which rings as true regarding U.S. foreign policy as it does about Iran’s current state of affairs:

If there is no justice,
then those who are deprived
may one day take to the streets and rise up.
(Hafez, a renowned 14th century Persian poet)

The first interview—the shortest of the three—is with Noam Chomsky, whom Barsamian has interviewed dozens of times, culminating in five Chomsky/Barsamian books. Chomsky, talking about U.S. policy with regard to Iran, demonstrates the self-destructive logic of preemption. “By U.S. standards, Iran ought to be carrying out terrorist acts in the United States,” he says. “In fact, adopting U.S. standards, we ought to be demanding that they do it. They’re under far greater threat than anything Bush or Blair ever conjured up, and that’s supposed to authorize what they call anticipatory self-defense, namely attack.”

Talking about Iran’s resumption of uranium enrichment, Chomsky says, “[J]ust do a media search and find out how often it has even been mentioned that when Iran began enriching uranium again, it was after the Europeans had rejected their side of the bargain, namely, to provide firm guarantees on security issues.” He then charges that the press knew about the Europeans backing down—under U.S. pressure—but chose to ignore the story.

Chomsky’s interview centers on Iran, but—surprise!—his analysis and examples take us on a roller-coaster ride from the U.S., South America and Europe to Palestine, Iraq, and China, spanning almost half a century. Always at ease and at his best with Barsamian, Chomsky pulls out examples and arguments from his memory with the skill of a seasoned magician pulling out all kinds of objects from a hat and leaving the audience at awe. However, the interview would have benefited from a few footnotes or editor’s notes, providing exact information and percentages, when, for example, Chomsky says, “I forgot the exact number, but I think they’re [China] getting maybe 10-15 percent of their energy imports from Saudi Arabia.” Or when he says, “He [Moqtada Sadr, an Iraqi Shiite cleric-politician, opposed to the U.S. presence] gained, I think, 50 percent or so in the last parliamentary elections.”

Providing the global and historical contexts Chomsky sets the stage for Iranian-born history professor Ervand Abrahamian’s in depth look at Iran’s political structure and the U.S-Iran confrontation today, with emphasis on the nuclear issue.

“If Iranians are hit by air strikes, they will hit back where they have the upper hand, which is Iraq and Afghanistan,” Abrahamian says. “They are obviously not going to attack the U.S., nor will they attack Israel, although people have this paranoid view about that,” he adds.

Abrahamian maintains that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad engages in Holocaust denial and calls for the destruction of Israel to bridge the gap between Sunnis and Shiites and to “pitch for Arab support.” He says that this rhetoric does not resonate in Iran as much as it does in the Arab street.

Asked about Tehran’s connection with the Lebanese Shiite armed group Hezbollah, Abrahamian says that Iran does not use this party to threaten Israel: “One major mistake the Israelis are making is thinking that Hezbollah is so closely tied with Iran that once the U.S. attacks Iran, Iran would automatically use Hezbollah against Iran. I don’t think that’s in the works.”

Reading the first two interviews, the reader has the impression that the book is a critical look at U.S. foreign policy with very little insight on Iran’s internal dynamics. Then comes the interview with Iranian-born historian Nahid Mozaffari. Barsamian and Mozaffari take the reader on a journey inside Iran’s vibrant literary life (yes, they DO have literature) from the early 20th century to the present; from poetry to novels and memoirs; from dissidents to female voices. She notes how Iranian writers, who visit the U.S., are treated as “human rights guinea pigs,” but also expands on the censorship, oppression and persecution they suffer in Iran, as well as the rise of the bloggers. Mozaffari deals with women’s issues (divorce, custody rights, property right, dress codes, etc.) in some detail. She also talks about the development of cinema in the post-1979 period and the clampdown on the rock groups and rappers under Ahmadinejad’s rule.

“The Islamist conservatives regard developments in civil society as threatening and susceptible to foreign manipulation,” explains Mozaffari.

One of the book’s main messages is in the concluding lines of this last interview: “This tough resolve by those who desire change within Iran, along with their [i.e. the Iranians’] equally strong determination to be independent of outside pressure and manipulations, should serve as a stern warning to the U.S. and other states who contemplate any military action against Iran.”

David Barsamian with Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian and Nahid Mozaffari Targeting Iran (City Lights Books, 2007).

Khatchig Mouradian is a Lebanese-Armenian journalist, writer and translator, currently based in Boston. He can be contacted at: khatchigm@hotmail.com.

Présentation du livre : “Targeting Iran” (L’Iran dans le colllimateur)

2007-08-11T20:48:00.000-07:00

Par Khatchig Mouradian
Traduction Louise Kiffer
http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=34290

“Ne posez pas de question sur la moisson, mais sur le labourage” dit un proverbe chinois. Dans le livre L’Iran dans le collimateur) le journaliste David Barsamian, qui a reçu un prix, suit ce conseil. Il demande à ceux qu’il interview, Noam Chomsky, Ervand Abrahamian et Nahid Mozaffari, tout ce qui concerne le labourage et les semailles qui ont culminé dans la diabolisation de l’Iran par les U.S. depuis la Révolution islamique de 1979, et vice-versa.

Certaines des interviews du fondateur d’ Alternative Radio et directeur David Barsamian, ont été publiées exclusivement dans Armenian Weekly, y compris une interview du rédacteur en chef d’Agos Etyen Mahcupyan dans le numéro de Weekly du 14 juillet. Ses auditeurs et lecteurs savent à quoi s’attendre : des questions claires, franches, souvent précédées d’une information sur le contexte - et pour emprunter une fois de plus une image agricole - et sur les semailles dans les subtilités et les complexités d’une région qui a longtemps souffert aux mains de ceux qui se prosternent devant les autels d’une extrême simplification, de la banalisation, de la décontextualisation et autres.

Dans son introduction, Barsamian relate une brève histoire de l’Iran et des relation U.S- Iraniennes. Il conclut en citant les vers favoris du lauréat du Prix Nobel de la Paix Shirin Ebadi, qui sonnent si juste par rapport à la politique étrangère U.S. de même qu’à l’état actuel des affaires de l’Iran :

S’il n’y a pas de justice,
Alors ceux qui en sont privés
Pourraient un jour descendre dans la rue et se soulever.
(Hafez, un poète persan célèbre du 14ème siècle).

La première interview - la plus courte des trois - est avec Noam Chomsky que Barsamian a interviewé une douzaine de fois, donnant lieu à cinq livres Chomsky/Barsamian.

Chomsky, parlant de la politique U.S. relative à l’Iran, démontre la logique auto destructrice de préemption “Selon les standards U.S., l’Iran devrait commettre des actes terroristes aux Etats Unis”, dit-il. “En fait, en adoptant les standards U.S. nous devrions être en train d’exiger qu’il le fasse. Ils sont très au-dessous d’une plus grande menace que n’importe laquelle jamais évoquée par Bush ou Blair, et cela est supposé autoriser ce qu’ils appellent l’autodéfense d’anticipation, autrement dit l’attaque.”

Parlant de la reprise par l’Iran de l’enrichissement de l’uranium, Chomsky dit : “Faites [seulement] une recherche dans les médias et voyez avec quelle fréquence il a été mentionné que quand l’Iran a recommencé à enrichir l’uranium, c’était après que les Européens aient rejeté leur participation au marché, à savoir, de donner des garanties fermes sur les questions de sécurité”. Il accuse alors la presse qui savait que les Européens faisaient marche arrière - sous la pression U.S. - mais avait choisi de ne pas en parler.

L’interview de Chomsky est centré sur l’Iran, mais - oh surprise ! - son analyse et ses exemples sont des montagnes russes qui nous mènent des USA en Amérique du Sud, puis en Europe, en Palestine, en Irak, en Chine, couvrant presque un demi siècle. Toujours à l’aise et au mieux de sa forme avec Barsamian, Chomsky sort des exemples et des arguments de ses souvenirs, avec l’adresse d’un magicien expérimenté qui tire de son chapeau des objets de toutes sortes, laissant son auditoire impressionné. Cependant, l’interview aurait eu intérêt à être complétée par quelques notes de bas de pages, donnant une information précise, par exemple des pourcentages, quand Chomsky dit : “J’ai oublié le nombre exact, mais je pense qu’elle [la Chine] reçoit 10 à 15 pour cent de ses importations d’énergie de l’Arabie Saoudite”. Ou quand il dit : “ Il a eu [Moqtada Sadr, un politicien chiite irakien ecclésiastique opposé à la présence U.S.] je crois environ 50 pour cent de voix dans les dernières élections législatives.”

Fournissant un contexte global historique, Chomsky met en scène l’histoire arméno-iranienne par l’examen approfondi, du professeur Ervand Abrahamian, de la structure politique de l’Iran et de la confrontation aujourd’hui U.S.-Iran, en insistant sur la question nucléaire.

“Si les Iraniens sont victimes de frappes aériennes, ils les rendront là où ils auront la haute main, aussi bien en Irak qu’en Afghanistan” , dit Abrahamian.

Il est évident qu’ils ne vont pas attaquer les Etats Unis, ni Israël, quoique les gens aient ce point de vue paranoïaque à ce sujet”, ajoute-t-il.

Abrahamian soutient que le président iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad défend le déni de l’Holocauste et appelle à la destruction d’Israël pour faire un pont par-dessus l’écart entre les Sunnites et les Chiites et pour “favoriser le soutien arabe”. Il dit que cette rhétorique ne résonne pas en Iran autant que dans les rues arabes.

Interrogé au sujet de la connexion de Téhéran avec le groupe armé chiite libanais du Hezbollah, Abrahamian dit que l’Iran n’utilise pas ce parti pour menacer Israël. “Une erreur majeure que les Israéliens sont en train de faire est de penser que le Hezbollah est si étroitement lié à l’Iran que sitôt que les U.S. attaqueront l’Iran, l’Iran va automatiquement utiliser le Hezbollah contre Israël.

Je ne pense pas que cela se prépare”.

En lisant les deux premières interviews, le lecteur a l’impression que le livre a un regard critique sur la politique étrangère U.S., avec un très petit aperçu de la dynamique interne de l’Iran. Puis c’est l’interview de l’historienne Nahid Mozaffari, native d’Iran. Elle et Barsamian emmènent le lecteur dans un voyage de la vibrante vie littéraire d’Iran (oui, ils ONT une littérature) depuis le début du 20ème siècle jusqu’à ce jour ; de la poésie aux romans et aux mémoires ; des dissidents aux voix féminines. Elle fait remarquer comment les écrivains iraniens, qui visitent les Etats Unis, sont traités de “cobayes des Droits Humains”, mais aussi elle s’étend sur la censure, l’oppression et la persécution subie en Iran, ainsi que la montée des bloggers. Nahid Moraffari traite en détail des questions féminines (divorce, droits de garde, le droit de propriété, les codes vestimentaires, etc...). Elle parle aussi du développement du cinéma après la période 1979 et la répression des groupes rock et des rappeurs sous le gouvernement d’Ahmadinejad .

“Les conservateurs islamistes considèrent les développements de la société civile comme menaçants et susceptibles de manipulation étrangère” explique Nahid Mozaffari.

L’un des principaux messages du livre est le passage de conclusion de cette dernière interview. “Cette ferme résolution de ceux qui désirent changer l’Iran par l’intérieur, accompagnée de leur détermination aussi solide [des Iraniens] à être indépendants de toute pression extérieure et de toutes manipulations, devrait servir d’avertissement sévère aux U.S. et aux autres Etats qui envisagent une quelconque action militaire contre l’Iran.”

http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/fea08110703.htm
David Barsamian est le fondateur et le directeur d’Alternative Radio www.alternativeradio.org

Les organisations juives d’amérique divisées sur une reconnaissance du génocide arménien

2007-08-09T20:39:00.000-07:00

Une controverse a vu le jour la semaine dernière à Watertown dans le Massachusetts où la Ligue Anti-Diffamation et son programme communautaire « Pas de Place pour la Haine » ont soulevé la question du rôle des Juifs et des groupes juifs dans la reconnaissance du génocide arménien.

Le 1 août 2007, le journal « Boston Globe » a annoncé des rapports tendus entre l’ADL et la communauté arménienne de Watertown en raison des propos du directeur national de l’ADL Abraham H. Foxman concernant l’opportunité par le Congrès américain de reconnaître le génocide d’un et demi millions d’Arméniens tués par les Turcs de 1915 à 1923. Un vote n’a pas encore été prévu pour la résolution qui a rencontré l’opposition des membres de lobbys turcs et de quelques organisations juives.

« Je ne vais pas être l’arbitre de l’histoire de quelqu’un d’autre » a déclaré Foxman au Globe dont l’organisation n’a pris aucune position officielle sur le génocide mais qui a ajouté que le Congrès ne devrait pas être impliqué dans l’écriture de l’histoire.

« C’est incompréhensible pour moi » a déclaré Khatchig Mouradian, le rédacteur de l’hebdomadaire arménien « Armenian Weekly » qui est basé à Watertown. « Je crois que le programme « Pas de Place pour la Haine » est un programme important, mais la communauté ici est outragée. »

M.Foxman n’a pas souhaité faire de commentaires.

Quoique reconnu par l’ensemble des historiens comme un fait indéniable, le débat sur la reconnaissance du génocide arménien révèle un fossé parmi les organisations juives. Le schisme souligne une complexe dynamique qui touche sur les relations de la Turquie avec Israël et le bien-être d’environ 25000 Juifs résidant toujours là-bas.

Tandis que beaucoup de groupes juifs invoquent « Jamais Plus » en tant que leg de l’Holocauste et protestent contre le génocide actuel au Darfur, le génocide arménien - que le gouvernement turc ne reconnaît toujours pas - pose le problème de la position morale.

Et quoique l’ADL dise qu’elle n’a aucune position sur la question, les commentaires de Foxman disent le contraire selon James Russell professeur d’Études arméniennes à l’Université de Harvard. Russell, un Juif et un Sioniste américain tel qu’il se décrit lui-même, déclare que les déclarations de Foxman sont inacceptables pour une organisation qui combat l’antisémitisme.
« De mon point de vue cela équivaut à la négation de l’Holocauste » a-t-il ajouté. « C’est une position profondément immorale et ignoble. ». Il y a peu de consensus parmi les organisations juives face à cette résolution du congrès sur la reconnaissance du génocide. Nancy K. Kaufman, directrice du Conseil des Relations Communautaires juif du Grand Boston maintient sa position que les Etats-Unis devraient reconnaître le génocide arménien.

« Nous sommes bien conscients de la question avec la Turquie mais nous sentons que nous ne pouvons pas nous éloigner du fait que c’est arrivé » a-t-elle dit. « Nous estimons très fortement que nous devons nous prononcer contre tout génocide. »

Larry Lowenthal, le directeur du Comité juif américain (AJC) de Boston, a exprimé un point de vue plus conflictuel.

« C’est un sujet très douloureux parce que chacun sait que le massacre d’Arméniens est un des événements les plus terrifiants de l’histoire moderne » a dit Lowenthal. « Mais il y a des questions stratégiques délicates à la communauté juive. Nous à AJC ne faisons pression d’aucune façon. »

Le 5 février, les chefs de l’AJC étaient parmi les représentants d’une poignée d’organisations juives - comprenant l’ADL - qui a rencontré Abdullah Gul, le ministre turc des affaires étrangères lors d’une réunion à Washington.

La réunion s’est focalisée sur une demande écrite des juifs de Turquie demandant aux organisations juives d’Amérique de ne pas faire de lobby en faveur de la résolution.
« C’est une dure situation » a déclaré pour sa part le consul général israélien en Nouvelle Angleterre Nadav Tamir. « Les relations stratégiques d’Israel avec la Turquie peuvent être critiquées mais d’autre part il est important pour nous en tant que survivants de Holocauste d’être absolument en conformité à cette question morale. Nous voulons vraiment maintenir de bonnes relations avec la Turquie et la Diaspora arménienne. »

Pour Jack Nusan Porter, trésorier de l’association internationale des chercheurs sur les Génocides, la question n’est pas de savoir si le génocide devrait être reconnu. « [ Foxman ] a fait une imbécilité intellectuellement,scientifiquement et politiquement. Il doit être remplacé » a déclaré le chercheur. « Il a mis en avant son ignorance aussi bien que la pression turque - qui est toujours très puissante dans la non-reconnaissance israélienne. » Mais selon Russell, le professeur de Harvard, il est injuste de s’attendre à ce qu’Israel prenne la tête de la reconnaissance du génocide arménien en raison de sa position périlleuse dans le Moyen-Orient.
« Si l’Amérique le fait, Israel suivra » a dit Russell. « Je ne dois aucune fidélité à la communauté arménienne, mais c’est également une question morale et je sais que le génocide a eu lieu. »

A Watertown, le futur du programme « Pas de Place pour la Haine » reste en suspens. Andrew H. Tarsy, directeur régional de l’ADL, dit qu’il projette de rencontrer des membres de la communauté arménienne de Watertown dans l’espoir de trouver un terrain commun.
« Nous ne défions pas l’histoire arménienne » a dit M.Tarsy. « Attaquer le programme de l’ADL n’est une solution à ceci. »

Mais pour Larry Lowenthal, cette situation est extrêmement incommode. « Aucune juif vivant ne peut oublié ceci » a-t-il indiqué du génocide arménien. « Je souhaite que nous ayons juste eu une position catégorique et morale sur ceci, mais pour beaucoup de raisons contraignantes nous le l’avons pas . Ce sont des questions sensibles, difficiles, morales et je me sens souffrir le martyre. »

Jusqu’ici les conséquences de cette question d’une reconnaissance étaient limitées à quelques articles critiques, y compris un “Virons Foxman” édité dans le magasin Jewcy.com sur le Web. Mais maintenant, la colère arménienne menace de faire dérailler le programme de l’ADL à Watertown.

La communauté arménienne de Watertown est l’une des plus grande des USA et menace de faire arrêter le programme de l’ADL.

« Ici à Watertown, vous ne pouvez ignorer le génocide arménien » déclare Ruth Thomasian, seule membre arménien du comité de planification du programme « Pas de Place pour la Haine » . « Vous pouvez l’appeler “allégué”’ou “supposé”ou “les chercheurs disent”. Le génocide s’est produit. »

A Watertown, sur une communauté de 32000 habitants près de 20 pour cent sont d’origine arménienne.

« Ce n’est pas un sujet de discussion » a déclaré pour sa part Deborah Lipstadt, spécialiste de l’Holocauste à l’université d’Emory. « Il y a un consensus accablant parmi les historiens qui travaillent dans ce secteur et il n’y a aucune question que c’est un génocide. Vous ne pouvez niez cette histoire. »

Joey Kurtzman, l’auteur de l’article de Jewcy, a déclaré que les organisations juives devraient être « visibles et prendre la parole avec la communauté arménienne. » « Foxman doit publier une rétraction publique et une excuse à la communauté arménienne et aussi à la communauté juive. Après cela, il devrait être renvoyé. »

Dans une tentative apparente de court-circuiter la controverse à Watertown, le bureau de Boston de l’ADL a semblé faire marche arrière face à la ligne de l’organisation.

« L’ADL n’a jamais nié ce qui est arrivé à la fin de la Première guerre mondiale » a affirmé un de ses membres de Boston dans une lettre publiée Boston Globe. « Il y a eu des massacres d’Arméniens et une grande souffrance (...). Nous croyons que le gouvernement turc d’aujourd’hui devrait faire plus que ce qu’il a fait pour s’en prendre au passé et se réconcilier avec les Arméniens. ».

« Nous allons devoir probablement couper nos relations si l’ADL n’entre pas en conversation avec nous et se met au travail sur cette question » a dit Mme Thomasian. « C’est une merveilleuse occasion d’avoir une compréhension du public de 90 ans de négationnisme et pourquoi des gens parfaitement raisonnables tombent dans des pièges comme cela. »

Will Twombly co-président du programme « Pas de Place pour la Haine » à Watertown a pour sa part déclaré le 26 juillet que son groupe est « une entité locale autonome » qui « reconnaît entièrement la tragédie indescriptible de cet événement terrifiant. Nos coeurs vont à chaque membre des familles de victimes du génocide. Nous espérons que tout ceux qui sont inspirés par leur courage travailleront localement pour empêcher la haine et généralement combattre et mettre fin à la dévastation au Darfour et dans les autres partis dévastées du monde ».

ADL uproar in Watertown sparks debate on genocide

2007-08-09T10:27:00.000-07:00

ADL uproar in Watertown sparks debate on genocide
By Raphael Kohan
The Jewish Advocate
Thursday August 9 2007

Jewish organizations divided over Armenian congressional resolution

A controversy exposed last week surrounding Watertown’s status as an Anti-Defamation League No Place for Hate community raised serious questions about the role of Jews and Jewish groups in recognizing the Armenian genocide.

On Aug. 1, the Boston Globe reported tensions between the ADL and Watertown’s Armenian community over ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman’s remarks on whether the U.S. Congress should pass a resolution recognizing the approximately 1.5 million Armenians killed by Turks from 1915 to 1923.

A vote has not yet been scheduled for the resolution, which has met opposition from Turkish lobbyists and some Jewish organizations.

“I’m not going to be the arbiter of someone else’s history,” Foxman told the Globe. The Globe additionally reported that Foxman, whose organization holds no official position on the genocide, said Congress should not be involved in history making either.

“It’s incomprehensible to me,” said Khatchig Mouradian, editor of the Watertown-based Armenian Weekly Newspaper. “I believe that No Place for Hate is an important program, but the community here is outraged.”

Foxman did not return requests for comment.

Though seen by many scholars as a historical fact, debate over recognizing the Armenian genocide reveals a distinct split among Jewish organizations. The schism underscores a complex dynamic that touches on Turkey’s relations with Israel and the welfare of the estimated 25,000 Jews still residing there.

While many Jewish groups invoke “Never Again” to further the legacy of the Holocaust and to protest the current genocide in Darfur, the Armenian genocide – which the Turkish government does not acknowledge – uncovers a less-than-forthcoming moral stance.

And though the ADL says it holds no position on the matter, Foxman’s comments show otherwise, according to James Russell, professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University. Russell, a Jew and a self-described American Zionist, said Foxman’s statements are disingenuous for an organization that combats anti-Semitism.

“In my view this amounts to Holocaust denial,” he said. “It is a deeply immoral and ignoble stance.”

Yet there is little consensus among Jewish organizations surrounding this congressional resolution on genocide recognition.

Nancy K. Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, maintains her position that the U.S. should recognize the Armenian genocide.
“We’re well aware of the issue with Turkey but feel we can’t back away from the fact that it happened,” she said. “We feel very strongly that we have to speak out against all genocide.”
Larry Lowenthal, executive director of the American Jewish Committee Boston Chapter, expressed more conflicted views.

“It’s a very painful subject because everybody knows that the massacre of Armenians is one of the most horrific events in modern history,” said Lowenthal. “But there are strategic issues delicate to the Jewish community. We at AJC are not lobbying in any way whatsoever.”
On Feb. 5, AJC leaders were among the representatives from a handful of Jewish organizations – including the ADL – who met with Abdullah Gul, the Turkish foreign minister, in Washington D.C. The meeting centered around a written plea from Turkish Jews, asking American Jewish organizations to not lobby on behalf of the congressional resolution.

“It’s a tough situation,” said Israeli Consul General to New England Nadav Tamir. “Israel’s strategic relations with Turkey – as a moderate Islamic state – are critical, but on the other hand it is important for us as survivors of the Holocaust to be absolutely consistent with the moral issue. We really want to maintain good relations with Turkey and the Armenian Diaspora.”

For Newton resident Jack Nusan Porter, treasurer of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, there is no question whether the genocide should be recognized.

“[Foxman’s] making a fool out of himself intellectually, academically and politically. He needs to be replaced,” said Porter. “It points out his ignorance as well as the Turkish pressure – which is still very powerful in Israeli non-recognition.”

But according to Russell, the Harvard professor, it is unfair to expect Israel to take the lead in recognizing the Armenian genocide because of its precarious position in the Middle East.
“If America leads on this, Israel can follow,” said Russell. “I owe no loyalty to the Armenian community, but this is also a moral issue and I know the genocide did take place.”
In Watertown, the future of No Place for Hate hangs in the balance.

Andrew H. Tarsy, regional director of the ADL, said he plans to hold conversations with members of Watertown’s Armenian community in hopes of finding common ground.
“We don’t challenge the Armenian history,” said Tarsy. “Attacking the ADL’s program is not a solution to any of this.”

When asked to explain what many view as Foxman’s contradictory comments, Tarsy said they may have been taken out of context.

But for Lowenthal, this entire ordeal has been extremely uneasy.

“No Jew alive can possibly forget this,” he said of the Armenian genocide. “I wish we just had a categorical, moral stance on this, but for many compelling reasons we don’t. These are delicate, difficult, moral issues and I feel anguished.”

Journalism 101: How to Survive a Day of Interviews on the Hill

2007-07-28T07:46:00.000-07:00

Journalism 101: How to Survive a Day of Interviews on the Hill
By Dzovak Kazandjian

The Armenian Weekly
July 28, 2007

In the last installment of Dzovak’s Journal, I wrote that week 4 had been the most fascinating time I had spent, thus far, in Washington D.C. The “Leo Sarkisian” interns had the opportunity to attend a roundtable discussion with Freshman Democrats Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) and Rep. Zach Space (D-Ohio) and find out the typical day in the life of a Member of Congress. The Representatives discussed their daily tasks and took questions to better paint a picture of the challenges facing newly elected Representatives.

As great as that was, this week turned out to be even better. I actually had a first hand look at the typical jammed-pack agenda Members of Congress have to constantly juggle—prime example being their ability to make time for a quick video interview before reaching the House floor to cast their votes.

I accompanied “Armenian Weekly” newspaper editor Khatchig Mouradian on a series of video interviews with some of the lead sponsors of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106). It was great opportunity to find out exactly how a journalist operates on Capitol Hill, and where media—ethnic or otherwise—fits into their schedule. I followed Mouradian as he questioned three House Members: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) (my own Congressman) and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).

The first interview with Rep. Schiff went without interruption since it was conducted first thing in the morning, just as the Congressman arrived to his office. I was responsible of setting up and videotaping the interview and ensuring that we got a strong product for broadcast purposes.

Our second interview was actually scheduled with Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.). Here is where I got a real feel for how fluid schedules are on Capitol Hill. We were first set to meet at 1:30 p.m. Her press secretary called and explained that votes were scheduled for that time and pushed the rendezvous to 2:30 p.m., only to find out that an amendment that the Congresswoman had initiated was under attack by Republican opponents, keeping her on the floor well late into the afternoon. I had really wanted to meet Rep. Eshoo, who is the only Member of Congress of Armenian descent, but it will have to be postponed to a slower legislative day.

We arrived at Rep. Sherman’s office at 3:00pm with plenty of time to set up a nice background for our interview, only to find that 45 minutes of votes were called and a leisurely 15-minute interview would have to be conducted in 5, no make that 3 minutes. The name of the game is adaptability, with Mouradian condensing 10 questions into 4 and getting the message out to our viewers.

The last interview ended up even more rushed, as all the day’s votes had pushed Rep. Pallone’s schedule hopelessly late. But Rep. Pallone always has time to discuss Armenian American concerns and at 5:45 p.m. we did a five-minute update about the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106).

Following Mouradian was great exposure into a line of work that I would eventually like to get into. It also really showed how flexible you have to be as a journalist if you are working on stories regarding Capitol Hill. Time is your greatest enemy on the Hill, with schedules turning on a dime based on votes and all sorts of crises. As frustrating or difficult as it is at times, it’s also really exhilarating and definitely something I would like to pursue.

Une interview de Sibel Edmonds, dénonciatrice du FBI (1ère partie)

2007-05-20T20:54:00.000-07:00

Serait-ce en le baîllon que nous avons foi ?
Une interview de Sibel Edmonds, dénonciatrice du FBI (1ère partie)
Par Khatchig Mouradian
http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=32030

The Armenian Weekly (www.armenianweekly.com)
Volume 73 ; Numéro 19, 12 Mai 2007

Traduction Gilbert Béguian

Sibel Simmonds, experte en langues au FBI, a été licenciée du bureau local du FBI de Washington en mars 2002. On lui reprochait d’avoir dénoncé des manquements à la sécurité, des camouflages, de la rétention d’information, et la corruption de certains citoyens des USA parmi lesquels des hauts fonctionnaires. Le secret d’état a été souvent invoqué pour faire obstacle à toute action en justice relative à son affaire, et le bâillon a souvent été utilisé au sein même du Congrès des USA pour y interdire toute discussion.

Edmonds a révélé, par exemple, une secrète collusion entre des groupes turcs et le précédent président de la Chambre des représentants, Dennis Hastert ( Républicain, Illinois), qui aurait reçu, selon certaines sources, des dizaines de milliers de dollars en pots-de-vin en échange du retrait de la résolution sur le Génocide des Arméniens du bureau de la Chambre des représentants en 2000.

Née en 1970 en Iran, Edmonds a obtenu un diplôme universitaire en justice et psychologie criminelles de l’Université George Washington et une maîtrise en sciences politiques et commerce international de l’Université George Manson. Elle est la fondatrice et directrice de la National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC, groupement de surveillance de la sécurité nationale) et a reçu, en 2006, le prix special PEN/Newman du Premier Amendement. Elle parle le turc, le farsi et l’azéri.

Cette interview a été faite le 23 avril à Washington. Pour plus d’informations sur son cas, visiter le site www.justacitizen.com

Khatchig Mouradian- Votre premier contact avec la Commission Judiciaire du Sénat dénoncer le cas de corruption turque de hauts fonctionnaires américains date de plus de cinq ans. Pourriez-vous nous dire comment cette affaire a évolué ensuite, et où elle en est aujourd’hui ?

Sibel Edmonds- Bien sûr. Cela fait un peu plus de cinq ans que je me suis présentée devant la Commission Judiciaire du Sénat pour que soient informés, en même temps et à huis clos, les collaborateurs du Sénateur Charles Grassley (Républicain, Iowa) et du Sénateur Patrick Leahy (Démocrate, Vermont). Je leur ai remis les références des documents spécifiques, le nom de ces documents, le nom des cibles spécifiques et dans leur détail, tous les éléments relatifs à mon affaire. Comme vous vous en souvenez peut-être, quelques mois après cette information de la commission judiciaire du Sénat, chacun de ces deux Sénateurs a commencé à en parler ouvertement dans les média. Nous avons vu le Sénateur Grassley déclarer dans l’émission 60 Minutes de CBS à quel point cette affaire le scandalisait. Des membres du FBI ont confirmé tous ces faits et ont dit qu’il conviendrait de mettre le FBI sens dessus dessous à la suite de cette affaire. Le Sénateur Leahy a fait des déclarations similaires et les deux sénateurs se sont efforcé de créer une audition sur cette affaire. J’ai appris par la suite qu’à ce moment là, le Président s’était opposé à une audition dans laquelle un certain nombre de personnes - parmi lesquelles des agents du FBI dignes de confiance qui auraient dit la vérité sous serment - auraient pu témoigner et faire la lumière sur cette affaire.

Après deux ans d’enquête, le rapport public rendu par le Bureau de l’Inspecteur Général du Département de la Justice. confirmait le contenu de mon propre rapport. Bien que mes déclarations soient soutenues par des documents et par d’autres témoignages, le FBI refusait d’ouvrir une instruction ou une enquête sur cette affaire. Au cours des cinq années qui viennent de s’écouler, voilà donc une affaire confirmée par certaines sources du Congrès, par des personnes au courant des faits, puis par le Bureau de l’Inspecteur Général du Département de la Justice, à aucun moment niée ou contestée par le Département de la Justice ou le FBI, mais pour laquelle rien n’a été encore fait.

Il n’y a eu aucune audition et personne n’a été tenu pour responsable. Nous en sommes à peu près au point où nous en étions au début et je trouve cela vraiment scandaleux.

C’est une situation déplorable et pas seulement pour ce qui me concerne ou pour ce qui concerne cette affaire en particulier. Beaucoup de gens peuvent penser qu’il ne s’agit que d’un cas de dénonciation parmi d’autres, celui d’une experte de langues qui travaillant pour le FBI et injustement licenciée. Mais je n’aurais pas été licenciée si je n’avais pas mis en évidence des faits important pour les citoyens américains, et même pour les personnes vivant en dehors des Etats-Unis. Cette affaire met en lumière plusieurs domaines importants, comme notre politique étrangère, qui est minée par l’hypocrisie. Nous ne parlons pas seulement de citoyens d’autres pays que le nôtre : nous parlons de nous-mêmes, nous parlons de fonctionnaires américains qui se sont engagés dans des actes contraires aux intérêts public américains et contraire nos devoirs.

Mais le peuple américain ignore encore tout de cette affaire, et le Congrès n’a rien fait malgré la totale information de ses membres et l’entière confirmation qu’ils en ont eu.

K.M.- C’est à se demander qui en réalité travaille pour les citoyens et qui travaille à son profit personnel et privé ?

S.E.- Cela est important, il est question ici de l’intérêt individuel par rapport à l’intérêt du peuple américain, et tout particulièrement parce qu’il s’agit d’employés du service public. Ce sont des personnes à qui sont donnés l’accès à des informations liées à la sécurité publique et à des documents ultrasecrets. J’insiste : cela n’est pas le fait d’un parti plutôt qu’un autre, de la droite plutôt que la gauche, ni le fait de l’administration au pouvoir au détriment d’autres organismes. Lorsqu’on rentre dans les détails de ces affaires, on découvre que ces personnes, ont usé et abusé de leur position pendant un certain temps. Et nous avons regardé de l’autre côté. Et les media principaux ont détourné leur regard. Il ne s’agit pas de faits ultrasecrets. Ces personnes, il suffit de les regarder.

Voyez le cas par exemple de M. Marc Grossman. Alors qu’il était en fonction, il a mis a profit son titre d’ambassadeur des USA en Turquie et son appartenance au Ministère des Affaires étrangères pour s’assurer de futures promotions ; pendant son service et au su de plusieurs organismes de contrôle, je tiens à insister sur ce point. Quelques personnes dans ces organismes voulaient enquêter sur ces faits mais elles en ont été empêchées.

Dans mon cas, il convient que je vous donne un seul exemple. J’ai été informée par mes chefs- et ces personnes sont des bons chefs ordinaires, des personnes avec qui je travaille - que le Pentagone et le Ministère des Affaires étrangères exerçaient des pressions sur le Ministère de la Justice pour étouffer l’affaire. Il n’y a qu’à regarder où en est M. Grossman aujourd’hui. Peu de temps après qu’il ait donné sa démission, il a obtenu un poste dans une compagnie turque semi régulière, ce qui constitue une récompense pécuniaire très attractive.

On peut relever des cas similaires, comme ceux de M. Douglas Feith et M. Richard Perle. Ils étaient agents étrangers attitrés pour la Turquie entre 1988 et 1995. Il s’agissait de fonctions très lucratives et sur ce point, ils n’étaient pas représentatifs des membres Gouvernement américain. Après avoir chacun démissionné de leur haute fonction dans le Gouvernement des USA en 2000, pensez vous qu’il y ait eu un changement quelconque sur les vrais intérêts qu’ils représentaient ?

Et malheureusement de telles situations se produisent du côté du Congrès. Il y a eu le cas de Solaris, membre du Congrès à la fin des années 80 et au début des années 90. Il y a eu le cas de Livingston, membre du Congrès - plus tard son Président - et la fonction qu’il avait comme représentant d’un intérêt étranger. Et c’est ce qu’on pourra voir sous peu avec les membres actuels du congrès, comme le président précédent Hastert. Il revient au public américain et aux media principaux de s’intéresser à ces questions. Ce dont nous parlons ici vaut pour un seul pays, la Turquie. Combien y en a-t-il d’autres ? Et pourquoi détournent-ils leur regard ? Notre peuple sait-il que nous faisons confiance et donnons autorité à des gens qui ne les représentent pas ?

K.M.- Vous êtes simplement une personne et vous êtes traductrice, travaillant sur des sujets principalement relatifs à la Turquie. Vous avez environ 200 collègues. Qui sait combien de telles affaires ont lieu ? Cette histoire, votre histoire, en soi, suffit à montrer à quel point le système est corrompu.

S.E.- Mon affaire a été connue jusqu’à un certain point par les actions dans lesquelles je me suis engagée, comme mes démarches en justice, au Congrès, etc. Il y a des affaires similaires qui ne sont pas ébruitées. Par exemple, le cas Larry Franklin, dans l’affaire d’espionnage avec AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, groupe de pression visant à soutenir Israel ).

Le public américain ne sait pas qu’il y a eu d’autres opérations de contre-renseignement au sein du FBI qui ont fourni beaucoup plus d’informations pas seulement limitées à M. Franklin. D’autres opérations ont été interrompues en 2000 et 2001 parce qu’elles finissaient par atteindre des niveaux plus élevés et impliquaient beaucoup trop de personnes. Je parle de personnes qui agissent illégalement, qui abusent de la confiance et de leur pouvoir, et qui, dans certains cas, se rendent coupables de trahison.

Encore une fois, il est très facile de voir ce qui s’est passé dans mon cas. Quelle conclusion les gens qui veulent bien faire et avancer peuvent-ils tirer de mon affaire ?

Ils peuvent se dire que cela finalement ne change rien, parce que j’ai usé de toutes les possibilités d’action offertes.

Je suis allée aussi loin que possible auprès des tribunaux, jusqu’à la Cour Suprême, et comme vous le savez, ils m’ont imposé le baîllon en invoquant le Secret d’Etat. Ils disent que tout, dans mon affaire - y compris mon lieu de naissance, les langues que je parle, tout - est classé secret. Il m’est interdit de discuter le point de savoir si j’ai raison ou tort. Et je suis allé partout au Congrès, j’y ai fait ce qu’il fallait. Il ne m’a pas considéré comme un auteur de fuites qui va tout raconter aux media et divulgue des documents classés secrets.

Je me suis présentée devant les commissions compétentes, la Commission Judiciaire et la Commission du Renseignement, et aussi, incidemment, à la Chambre des Représentants et au Sénat...J’ai exploré les possibilités d’autres structures compétentes- les tribunaux, le Bureau de l’Inspecteur Général, qui dépend de l’exécutif. J’ai essayé les média. Par conséquent, je ne blâme pas les pessimistes qui disent que cela ne change rien, ou qui pensent qu’ils perdront leur emploi ou qu’ils risquent peut-être la prison. Beaucoup de ces personnes sont soutiens de famille. Ce sont des gens consciencieux, mais ils ont derrière eux 15 à 20 ans de carrière et pensent, « je suis à 5 ans de la retraite et je ne vais pas gâcher cela » . Il y a donc de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles beaucoup de personnes ne s’avancent pas.

Ils vous prennent en exemple. Parce que si une affaire, la mienne par exemple, débouchait sur une vraie décision de justice et établirait les responsabilités, vous verriez un certain nombre de gens faire de même. Et combien de fois - disons seulement sur la dernière décennie- avez-vous vu le dénonciateur de l’une quelconque de ces administrations s’avancer et se montrer ? je ne pense pas que vous pourrez en citer un seul.

Vous pouvez également constater la culpabilité d’autres organismes, quelquefois même non intentionnellement. Il y a beaucoup à reprocher par exemple à nos principaux media. Délibérément ou non, ils sont complices en ne relatant pas ce qu’ils devraient relater, et en n’enquêtant pas sur ce sur quoi ils le devraient. Ils ont abdiqué leur responsabilité.

Et vers quoi tournons nous nos regards lorsqu’il s’agit d’enquêtes de responsabilités ? Vers le Congrès. Et il y a eu une raison majeure si nous n’avons pas vu appelées plus de personnes issues du FBI, agents avec lesquels j’ai travaillé- solides, patriotes, bons Américains, dévoués.
Ils étaient autant indignés que je l’étais lorsque j’ai découvert ces affaires et fait un rapport interne. Si la Commission Judiciaire ou celle des Affaires du Gouvernement à la Chambre des Représentants avait organisé une audition et convoqué ces agents pour témoigner, ils auraient dit la vérité sous serment.

K.M.- Alors, quelle est selon vous, la définition d’un agent des USA aujourd’hui ?

S.E.- Je ne peux pas parler d’autres administrations, mais s’agissant du FBI, vous avez différents types d’opérations. Par exemple, si l’agent du FBI travaille sur une affaire criminelle, son rôle consiste à réunir des preuves sous le contrôle de la justice, de rechercher les criminels et les remettre à la justice. Jusqu’à un certain point, le contenu de la fonction reste la même pour les opérations anti-terroristes, celles dévolues à la division du FBI que je considère la plus importante, mais qui marche malheureusement le plus mal. Vous avez des agents, des traducteurs et des analystes qui surveillent les activités -parfois criminelles, parfois liées à l’espionnage- de groupes étrangers dans notre pays. Au cas où ils sont en mission sur des activités criminelles et si des citoyens américains y sont engagés, ils doivent relever les faits, en faire un rapport, se rendre au Département de la Justice, aller dans les tribunaux et commencer des enquêtes parallèles, non plus au titre d’affaire de contre-renseignement, mais à celui d’affaires criminelles ou d’espionnage.

C’est ce qui s’est passé dans cette affaire AIPAC. Elle a commencé au bureau local de Washington où je travaillais bien avant mes débuts au FBI ; les opérations ont débuté au titre du contre-renseignement avec les traducteurs et les analystes et agents avec lesquels j’étais en relation.

Les cibles n’étaient pas de nationalité américaines. Ils s’agissait, disons en termes hypothétiques, de groupes affiliés à l’AIPAC et émanant de l’Ambassade d’Israel. Ce n’est qu’après que ces activités explosives soient apparues et qu’un certain agent impliqué ait décidé de les attaquer de front, avant l’année 2000 - qu’une enquête parallèle fut ouverte. C’est ensuite que nous avons été informés du rôle de Feith et Larry Franklin.

La même chose était sur le point de se développer avec le contre renseignement turc dans le corps du texte de la transcription - mise sur écoute ou papier - d’opérations que j’avais traduite mot pour mot pour le Bureau local de Washington mais aussi pour ceux de Chicago et de New Jersey. Elles avaient été conduites avant 2001. S’il fallait y mettre une date, on pourrait la situer vers 1996 à 2001. En 1998 et 1999, il y avait un grand nombre de pièces démontrant l’implication de citoyens américains.

Nous voulons parler de personnes titulaires de fonctions officielles, soit au Département d’Etat, soit au Pentagone, soit au Congrès. Les agents firent ce qui convenait en engageant une procédure parallèle ciblant les individus supposés commettre des actes de trahison. Cependant, comme j’en ai été informée en première main par des agents avec lesquels je travaillais, cette procédure fut arrêtée en 1999 car le Président Clinton était impliqué dans le scandale Lewinski. Après que l’administration courante fut mise en place et que j’y sois attachée, les agents eurent pour instruction de la clore. Les personnes qui prirent cette décisison n’appartenaient ni au Ministère de la Justice ni au FBI, et chose que j’essaie de souligner tout le temps - ils étaient sous pression, ils étaient contraints par des forces du Pentagone et du Département d’Etat. Et quelles raisons étaient-elles données derrière la scène ? Je ne sais pas, je n’étais pas là, mais ils donnèrent des explications et justifications identiques devant les tribunaux : « vous parlez de relations diplomatiques extrêmement sensibles. »

Et en fait, par la suite, le Ministre de la Justice Ashcroft, alors qu’il invoquait le secret d’état dans mon affaire, déclara qu’exposer ces questions devant les tribunaux, à tort ou à raison, détériorerait certaines relations diplomatiques sensibles et entraverait certaines relations d’affaires des USA avec l’étranger. Nous savons que l’un des pays visé était la Turquie. Ainsi vous avez là une citoyenne américaine qui a été privée des droits que lui donne le Premier amendement. Baillonnée. Je veux dire, est ce là un concept américain, baillonner une personne ? Vous ne parlez pas là d’un combattant ennemi, vous ne parlez pas là d’un suspect de terrorisme. Vous voyez un citoyen américain respectueux des lois qui paye ses taxes,
Ainsi ces relations d’affaires, ces relations diplomatiques ont justifié la privation d’un citoyen américain des droits que lui donne le Premier amendement, et de ses droits du Quatrième amendement devant un tribunal. En fait, le Département d’Etat des USA a fait une classification rétroactive illégalement et le Congrès a été effectvement baillonné en mai 2004. Ils ne disent même pas à quelles relations diplomatiques ils se réfèrent. En ont-ils honte ? Parlons nous de milliards de dollars en fournitures d’armes ? Pourquoi ne sont-ils pas plus spécifiques ? Parce qu’il s’agit de choses ultrasecrètes, confidentielles. C’est pour cela que j’ai fait ces rapports, selon des sources extérieures d’information fiables, recueillant l’ensemble des données.

Vous faites référence à 5 milliards de dollars tous les deux ans en fourniture d’armes ? Cela n’est pas ultrasecret. Qui bénéficie de cela ? Quelles compagnies ? Qui sont les individus qui en tirent bénéfice ? Et y a-t-il quoi que ce soit dans les questions que je soulève qui pourrait porter atteinte aux Américains et à leur sécurité, si elles étaient dévoilées ? Rien. Rien du tout.
En fait, ce sont des questions et ce sont des affaires qui pourraient être bénéfiques à leur sécurité nationale parce que les mêmes activités couvrent également le blanchiement de l’argent de certaines activités de stupéfiants. Tout ce qu’il y a à faire, c’est de prendre connaissance des propres rapports du Département d’Etat sur la Turquie et l’opium. Quatre vingt douze pour cent de l’héroine fournie en Europe arrive par la Turquie, et elle est commercialisée et distribuée par des ressortissants turcs.

Ces informations ne sont pas confidentielles. Elles se trouvent dans le propre rapport du Département d’Etat. Les fleurs de pavot sont cultivés en Afghanistan, les Talibans en tirent les bénéfices, et les membres d’Al Qaïda tirent le bénéfice de la vente de ces fleurs de pavot à des individus en Turquie qui ensuite distribuent et fournissent 92 pour cent du marché de l’héroïne européen.

Avons-nous dit « prenez des mesures contre ces activités de stupéfiants parce qu’elles servent au terrorisme, et parce que les terroristes sont une menace pour la sécurité nationale ? » Non, nous ne l’avons pas dit. Time Magazine a fait un article de 11 pages sur la façon dont la production d’opium en Afghanistan a été augmentée.

La valeur de cette production d’opium a même été calculée.

Et il y a eu des déclarations de divers membres du Congrès, dont Walter Jones qui s’est rendu en Afghanistan, disant que beaucoup de cet argent est destiné au soutien d’Al Qaïda et des Talibans.

Le montant s’élève entre 38 et 50 milliards de dollars par an. Ce même article limite la production de pavots à quelques fermiers. Et vous imaginez ces Afghans en shalvar cultivant les pavots là-bas, et vous pensez bien que ces quelques personnes ne sont pas capables de gérer une industrie de 50 milliards. Ils n’en obtiennent qu’une petite part. La transformation du pavot en héroïne et son acheminement à travers les routes des Balkans sont assurés par des citoyens turcs. Et il ne s’agit pas de voyous ordinaires de Turquie, il s’agit de militaires turcs et de la police turque. En 2000, un professeur de Turquie a fait une étude documentée disant qu’un quart de l’économie turque repose sur la production et la distribution d’héroïne. Evidemment, il a du quitter le pays, se réfugier en Allemagne et y demander l’asile politique parce qu’il s’est rendu coupable de trahison pour avoir critiqué le gouvernement turc.

Time Magazine n’a pas parlé des acteurs principaux, des hauts placés, des puissants qui distribuent, produisent, commercialisent et blanchissent les produits. Ces gens ne sont pas inquiétés. Si vous lisez l’étude, vous y trouverez les pays concernés - la Turquie, Chypre, les Emirats Arabes Unis. Mais ils sont opportunément laissés de côté dans l’article de Time Magazine, laissant chaque Américain conclure que les fermiers gagnent 50 milliards de dollars par an. Là encore, le coupable en est Time Magazine car ce n’est pas le cas.

Tandis que le rapport montre l’implication turque, celle des Emirats Arabes Unis et pakistanaise, nous disons qu’ils sont nos alliés que nous ne voulons pas les affecter, les abandonner. En fait nous faisons beaucoup d’affaires et avons des relations diplomatiques sensibles avec eux, ainsi que le relève Don Ashcroft. Mais si aucun d’entre eux ne fait partie de l’axe du mal, si l’un d’entre eux était la Syrie, si l’un d’entre eux était l’Iran, si l’un d’entre eux était la Corée du Nord, s’il s’agissait de Sadam, vous verriez quel tapage cela soulèverait - comment le pays et le peuple de Saddam aident les Talibans financièrement et AlQaïda avec ces questions. Mais il y a eu ce gros « holà » ! Ils sont nos très proches alliés, ceux à qui sont donnés des aides de milliards de dollars, qui nous reviennent pour nous acheter des armes. Nous ne pouvons faire du surplace sur de tels sujets. Nous avons trop de gens puissants, trop de puissantes compagnies qui en tirent bénéfice.

Qui représente le peuple américain ? Nous savons bien que le précédent président M. Livingston représente aujourd’hui ces intérêts à l’extérieur, donc notre Congrès représente ces puissances étrangères. Mais qui en réalité représente le citoyen américain ? Et comment ? Il est très difficile d’en suivre les antécédents. C’est cela que l’on souhaiterait voir traiter par les principaux media de ce pays, et ils ne le font pas.

2007-02-24T07:50:00.000-08:00

Zahrad (1924-2007)

By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
February 24, 2007

It was first and foremost a loss for poetry when Zahrad passed away on Feb. 21.

Zahrad (Zareh Yaldizciyan) was born in Istanbul in 1924. His father, Movses, was a jurist, advisor and translator in the Ottoman Foreign Ministry. His mother, Ankine Vartanian, was born in Samatia.

Zahrad received his intermediate and secondary school education at the Pangalti Mekhitariste School in Istanbul, graduating in 1942. He briefly attended medical school before he discontinued his university education to work. He married Anayis Antreasian in November 1963.

From Zareh to Zahrad

“I was 18 when I started writing,” Zahrad told journalist Talin Suciyan in the last interview he gave before his death (Nokta, Jan. 25-31, 2007). “If I had signed my name under my submissions to the newspapers, my family would have nagged me to death, saying ‘You are dealing with such meaningless stuff.’ To rescue myself from such words I made up the name ‘Zahrad.’ Time passed, my real name was forgotten, and ‘Zahrad’ became well-known.”

His first book, Medz Kaghak (big city), came out in 1960 in Istanbul. Kounavor Sahmanner (colored borders, Istanbul, 1968); Gananch Hogh (green soil, Paris, 1976); Pari Yergink (kind sky, Istanbul, 1971); Meg karov yergou karoun (two springs with one stone, Istanbul, 1989); Magh me chour (a sieve of water, Istanbul, 1995); Dzayre Dzayrin (a tight fit, 2001 Istanbul); and Choure baden Ver (water up the wall, Istanbul, 2004) followed.

His poems are translated into 22 languages. Collections of his poems have been published in English (“Gigo Poems by Zahrad,” 1969, translated by Agop Hacikyan; “Zahrad, Selected Poems,” 1974, translated by Ralph Setian); in Turkish (“Zahrad: Yag Damlasi” published by Iyi Seyler, 1993, reprinted in 2000); “Yapracigi goren balik” (published by Belge, 2002); “Isigini Sondurme Sakin” published by Adam, 2004); in Georgian (1997); and a number of other languages.

Enormous Oak Tree

“I prefer individuality in poetry. However, it does not make sense to go against the esthetic understanding of the era. My first 10-15 poems were written in classical style, in which I was a master. Later, I discontinued writing in that style, not because I was unsuccessful, but in order to follow the fashion of the time. I am not talking about the fashion of the mini-skirt, long hair, parting hair from the side or from the middle…I am talking about an esthetic point of view,” he told Suciyan during the interview for Nokta.

According to Levon Ananian, the president of Armenia’s Writers’ Union, Zahrad was the “enormous oak tree” of Diasporan poetry, and his literary legacy has left a deep and lasting effect on modern Armenian poetry, both in the Diaspora and Armenia.

“Zahrad creates a world where even the darkest shadows are illuminated with compassion and humor, albeit couched in an observer’s aloofness that acts as a shield for a very sensitive soul,” said Tatul Sonentz, whose translations of Zahrad are featured on page 9.

“Let me owe you a sieve of water,” Zahrad says in one of his poems. Yet, we owe him a river of fresh, joyful water, because that’s what he was for the sweet but melancholic pond of Armenian poetry.

An Appreciation of William Saroyan and James H. Tashjian

2007-01-27T07:51:00.000-08:00

Saroyan Is Your Voice
An Appreciation of William Saroyan and James H. Tashjian
By Stuart Hyde

The Armenian Weekly
January 27, 2007

Last week, I went to my Washington Mutual Branch in Bon Air to deposit some checks. After waiting in line, my turn came so I approached the available cashier and handed her my checks and deposit slip. I then looked at her face, and then her name plate to verify what my eyes saw.

“You’re Armenian.”

“Yes.”

“Then you know Saroyan.”

“Is he a customer?”

“No, he was a…”

(Cutting me off) “I’m sure I’ve never met this person…”

“No, William Saroyan, the famous writer.”

“Never heard of him.”

“William Saroyan is your voice, but have you heard it? Have you read his words?”

“He’s not my voice! I’m sure of that!”

“But he is, and you must find him. You need to be embraced by his visions of Fresno, of San Francisco, of Armenia. His voice will help you find deeper meaning to your Armenian-ness. Once you find him, you’ll want to share him with everyone! I found him years ago, but only recently did I really discover him.”

She looked at me as though I was crazy, perhaps the way Saroyan was looked at by literal-minded rubes who didn’t know a wild, but gentle genius when they saw one.

I used the back of a deposit slip to write down “William Saroyan.” I told her to check out My Name is Aram, The Human Comedy, and Peace, it’s Wonderful. I added my name and e-mail address because I was sure that when she found her Armenian voice, she’d want to know more.

She never contacted me.

Does a man who has no Armenian blood in him have the right to tell an Armenian woman that she will not become fully human until she learns to see the world through the eyes and heart of a man, now gone, who left us with thousands of words centering around him, his Uncle Aram, his mother Takoohi, his birthplace Fresno, and whose stories live on in those whose sensitivities he nurtured, whose compassion he inspired, and whose love of Armenia, Armenians and the Armenian language lived in him until his last breath?

Yes, I think I have a right to do this. It took an Englishman, Lord Elgin, to see and save the magical Parthenon frieze, neglected by Greeks for 2,000 years; and it was a Frenchman, Jean-François Champollion, who unlocked the mystery of the hieroglyphs to give us the history and wisdom of the ancient Egyptians.

I have no right to advise Armenians on any other subject, but William Saroyan is special case. Earlier I said, “only recently did I really discover him.” Before I get to that, let me explain my connection with Saroyan.

When I was a teenager, I discovered the writings of William Saroyan while a student at Fresno High School. He was 15-years-old when I was born, so when he was 30, I was ready to read his stories. If I’d known at the time that an acquaintance, Cheslie Saroyan, two years ahead of me in school, was related to him, I would have done almost anything to cultivate his friendship. Through Cheslie, I would perhaps even meet the man who gave voice to my warm quiet valley of home—the writer who turned me on to reading, to studying, to writing, and most importantly, to living freely if somewhat wildly.

As an adolescent in Fresno, I was one of many high school kids who became addicted to Saroyan early on. We couldn’t wait for each of his books to be published. We had little money, so we shared his stories (money was very scarce for us in those days), passed them around, and discussed them at great length, dissecting them in meticulous detail. Eventually, we realized that by our analyses we were treating the living Saroyan as a cadaver in a forensics class: we could see all the pieces, but they explained nothing. If we couldn’t “get” Saroyan through our feelings, our emotions, our guts, we would never get inside the magic world of this giant. So, we gave up de-anatomizing Saroyan, and let him enter our hearts.

But, I didn’t seek Cheslie out. So, I missed my first chance to meet Saroyan.

Many years later, after living through the Great Depression, World War II, the disillusionments of the ‘60s—JFK, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Robert Kennedy, Gandhi—and after more years of studying and teaching, marriage, children and their offspring, and much, much more, I came across a dog-eared copy of Peace, It’s Wonderful and decided I’d revisit William Saroyan. I didn’t start with this book, but with a biography, A Daring Young Man.

After finishing this book, I felt the need to see if my teenage addiction to Saroyan would hold up, so I read the two books of short stories I’d saved and carried on my ship throughout the war, and again to college and grad school, treasuring them but never finding time (or perhaps the motivation) to dip into them again until now. In re-reading his stories, I was awakened to the wonder of a Fresno I’d failed to sense or appreciate growing up—a wonderment that did not escape this sensitive artist.

During this time, I was aware that Saroyan was again living in Fresno, just 200 miles south of San Francisco. It would have been easy for me to drive there, contact him, and, I’m sure, spend some time with him.

But, I didn’t. Too busy. Can’t leave right now, maybe next month. I’m needed at work. My family needs me. And so on.

On May 18, 1981, William Saroyan died. So, I missed my last chance to touch him.

I thought that was it. But this man would not let me go. One Sunday, several months ago, I went to Fort Mason, a decommissioned old military base in San Francisco Bay, to visit the Friends of the Library shop of used books, but was diverted when I saw a large sign: TODAY ONLY: BIG USED BOOK SALE, PIER 5.

I browsed through the $1.00 book tables, saw many titles I found appealing, but not enough so to bite on and, when I was just about to leave, Saroyan struck again: I saw a hard cover book I never knew existed: My Name is Saroyan.

I grabbed it, paid my buck, and left.

The book turned out to be a revelation, more than 100 stories, letters, poems and plays that Saroyan sent to the Hairenik papers in Boston over the years, beginning in 1933 and ending in 1954. Of the 97 stories, 68 had never been published aside from their appearance in the Armenian periodicals! My Name is Saroyan was edited and annotated by James H. Tashjian, who was for more than 30 years editor of the Hairenik Weekly (later the Armenian Weekly) and the Armenian Review.

In reading My Name is Saroyan, I was taken back to those Fresno days and to memories of my friends, Bob Kuyumjian (best buddy), Aurora Vartikian (I had a crush on her!), Mike Keshishian and Senor Saghatelian (outstanding football players), Arpie Ohanian, Bobbie Kevorkian (class clown), and so many more! And to the streets where I walked and rode my bike—like Saroyan, the one with no rubber on the peddles. And to the nearby small towns of Clovis, Fowler, Selma, Kingsburg, Kerman, Mendota...

I photographically relived the night Bob Kuyumjian and I snuck into Memorial Auditorium to see the original New York touring cast performance of Saroyan’s play “The Time of Your Life,” which was truly the time of my life, for I never escaped its magic, and knew from that moment on that I had to do something in the theatre. (I wound up teaching drama, and then radio and television.)

This adventure was immediately tarnished by one of my father’s co-workers. My dad came home in a stew, and came right to the point: “Did you sneak into the auditorium last night to see a play?” “Yes, Dad, I did.” I expected him to punish me for this minor crime, but that wasn’t the cause of his anger. “Dan Bradley told me he saw you sneaking into the show with an Armenian kid.” “Yeah, Dad, it was Bob Kuyumjian…” He cut me off, and went into a tirade against his co-worker because, you see, he had immense respect for the Armenians who had come to Fresno after the Turkish holocaust. So I wasn’t the target of his rage. I felt more respect for my Dad at that moment than I ever thought I could or would.

My Name is Saroyan also brought back the day in 1944, that I spent with the Saroyan clan in Long Beach, where the extended family encamped for several weeks to escape the blistering hot summer of Fresno. I was in San Pedro with my ship, getting ready to head out into the Pacific, but when I was invited to the Saroyan get-together by my friend, Dudley St. John, who was stationed at an army base nearby, I received a pass and was on my way. One of the many memorable events that day was shish kebab made in their penthouse apartment in a large galvanized metal tub!

My strongest memories of that day, though, were dozens of short but evocative stories told by the patriarch of the family—I may be wrong, but I’ve always remembered him as Uncle Aram. Most of his tales were fables or parables from the Old Country. But at one point he became very sober as he recounted memories of his family rushing ahead of armed Turkish troops on horseback, who were cutting down thousands of Armenians who only wanted to reach Musa Dagh and safety.

As much as I was enjoying the day, I was keyed up, waiting for William Saroyan’s appearance, but Dudley was wrong: Saroyan didn’t show up…

So, I missed another opportunity to meet him.

The deeper I got into My Name is Saroyan, the more I needed to contact Mr. Tashjian, to tell him how much I appreciated his assembling and annotating a book which—had he not had custody of the Saroyan papers and dedicated himself to bringing them to the public—most likely would have remained in the Armenian Weekly archives, unread, until some compulsive “neat-freak” sent them to the recycling bin to make more storage space.

My Name is Saroyan brings to life an enigmatic genius, a man who revealed himself in every word he wrote, yet one who remained a mystery in many ways when he lived and when he died. In this book, touching indications of his insecurities show up that are never found in his cocky, arrogant public stance. The Saroyan most people thought they knew, but didn’t, is revealed in these pages.

In A Fistfight for Armenia, written in 1933, he gives a furious picture of a child who wants only to live in peace, yet can’t escape the pervasive contempt shown to Armenians by many of “Fresno’s finest.” The story is told by “Caspar,” obviously the alter ego of Saroyan himself.

“One evening he and Reuben Paul sat on the porch of his home talking when a group of six or seven boys came up, running and shouting they had been insulted. Roy Sommers, who had boxed in the ring of the American Legion, had insulted them. ‘He called us dirty Armenians,’ said Ara George, a boy of eight, who began to tremble and burst into tears.”

Later, as Caspar and Sommers fight, a girl in the small crowd yells, “We’ll massacre you like the Turks,” she said. “You just watch. We’ll cut you to pieces the way the Turks did.”

As far as I know, Saroyan never in his stories revealed the ache that must have lived in him every day, growing up in Fresno. The public knows only of his deep love for his home town: “We drank the beer and my cousin cranked the car and we got in and drove out of the hills into the warm, quiet, valley that was our home in the world, in time, in the time of living.”

The world knows William Saroyan as the brilliant writer who became suddenly famous with the publication of The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze. After that, people think, everything was roses. But, in My Name is Saroyan, we learn about his subsequent struggles. Perhaps his story most revered by the multitudes is The Human Comedy. Here is what he wrote to the editor of the Hairenik Weekly in Jan. 1942:

“I took the manuscript to Metro and they read it without talking about money. A couple of days later one of Hollywood’s greatest authorities called me in and said, ‘Saroyan, we’ll give you $25,000 for that ream of junk, even though we don’t know what we’ll do with it; we’re doing you this favor since we called you, you didn’t call us.’ I was not at all impressed at his generosity. I asked ‘what’s your next best offer?’ ‘Not a sou more’ he said (educated Hollywood people always use ‘sou’ for ‘cent.’”

Were it not for editor James Tashjian, the world would never have been told about his constant struggle to preserve his income and his integrity.

These are but two examples of the many revelations in My Name is Saroyan. The millions of readers whose lives were enriched by his words and his wisdom will never see Saroyan in all his dimensions without reading this gift from James Tashjian.

On Nov. 21, 2006, I sent this e-mail to the Armenian Weekly:

Hello. I am writing to learn more about Mr. Tashjian. I recently came across “My Name is Saroyan,” and am incredibly grateful for this book and for the vision of Mr. Tashjian who made it possible.

I grew up in Fresno, and was one of many high school kids who discovered Saroyan early on. We couldn’t wait for each of his books to be published; we read them, shared them, and discussed them at great length and dissected them in amazing detail.

Anyway, I hope Mr. Tashjian is alive and well, and if so I’d like to hear from him.

Sincerely,
Stuart Hyde
Emeritus Professor,
San Francisco State University

On Nov. 30, I received this response:

Dear Professor Stuart Hyde,

I am sorry to inform you that James Tashjian has just passed away. I wanted to visit him as well to wish him well and also printed your email so that he got a chance to read it, but he passed away before we had a chance to visit him. I do not know Mr. Tashjian in person—I moved to the U.S. a few months ago—but all those who knew James Tashjian and worked with him only have good words about the man.

Regards,

Khatchig Mouradian
Editor, The Armenian Weekly

So, once again, I missed an opportunity—not to touch William Saroyan, because I’d already lost that chance—but to at least get nearer to him through the man who expanded and deepened my knowledge and understanding of this great author, the editor who made William Saroyan a more complete figure in the Pantheon of great storytellers.

I end by paraphrasing what I said to that teller at the Washington Mutual Branch, but what I say now to readers of the Armenian Weekly:

William Saroyan is your voice, but have you heard it? Have you read his words? You may need to be embraced by his visions of Fresno, of San Francisco, of Armenia. His voice may even help you find deeper meaning to your Armenian-ness. Once you find him, you’ll want to share him with everyone! I found him years ago, but only recently did I really discover him.”

Thank you, James H. Tashjian.

Three Poems

2006-12-23T07:29:00.000-08:00

Three Poems by By Khatchig Mouradian

Translated by Tatul Sonentz
The Armenian Weekly
December 23-30, 2006

PITY

Already the newspeak Pegasus
Pines wasted in the stable
It never ventured a visit
To its native clouds.
Tomorrow when its body
Is committed to the soil
And its soul to radiance,
We shall long lament the fact
That it was fed hay instead of words.

(1999)

TOAST

Tonight as I dock
The boat of silence
Endless words old and new
Thrash restless in my net.
Tomorrow morning
Dear reader
I shall bring to your table
The flaming loot of treasured momentos
Ablaze with longings.

(Oct. 15, 2000)

ETERNAL LOVE

Love was eternal—
An Eternity of mere months…
And now, memories frolicking
A few fortnights in the backyard of dreams,
Dreams limping along behind the pause,
Come ever closer in single file
To sprinkle a fistful of soil…

They approach one by one
To sprinkle a handful of dust…
As you slip into the new infinity
Patched up by your fancy
Your love still prompts my thoughts
From the great beyond…

(June 13, 2000)

Paulo Coelho’s Journey Among the Armenians

2006-10-28T07:49:00.000-07:00

An Alchemist’s Pilgrimage
Best-Selling Author Paulo Coelho’s Journey Among the Armenians
By Khatchig Mouradian

The Armenian Weekly
October 28, 2006

“This book, telling the story of a shepherd boy named Santiago, is about following your dreams,” said my Chinese friend.

“Its message is powerful and simple: If you really believe in something, the whole universe conspires with you to achieve it. Take it to Beirut with you and read it,” she continued.

Thousands of miles away from home, I was being offered a book I had on my own bookshelf, but had never read. Thus, on September 10, 2000, in Shenyang, China, my story with The Alchemist had begun.

As I was reading the book on the plane on my way back, I felt I could easily relate to the message of the novel: We had to go to far away lands, sometimes, to find treasures hidden in our backyard.

“I will translate this book to Armenian one day,” I thought, as the captain was announcing our arrival at the Beirut International Airport.

In October 2003, I started interviewing writers, artists and academics from around the world for the Lebanese-Armenian daily newspaper Aztag. “My first interviewee ought to be the author of The Alchemist,” I thought.

I emailed the author’s literary agency requesting an interview and, much to my surprise, I received a positive response. One of the top best-selling authors of the world had agreed to share his thoughts with a small community newspaper in Beirut.

The last question I asked Paulo Coelho was whether there were plans to translate his book, The Alchemist, to Armenian. Already translated into 54 languages, I felt it was time Armenians read the book in their mother tongue. He expressed hope that a publishing house would be interested in such an endeavor.

On October 30, the interview appeared in Aztag. A few days later, I received a phone call from the Hamazkayin publishing house in Beirut. “We would love to have The Alchemist translated to Armenian. Would you be interested in translating it?” asked the voice on the other side.

I remembered my Chinese friend, Paulo Coelho’s quote about wanting something, and the wish I had expressed on my flight to Beirut. When we obtained the rights from Coelho’s literary agency, the shepherd boy Santiago in me was thrilled.

A year later, I was holding the first copy of my translation of The Alchemist. I flipped to page 5 where the Translator’s Foreword appeared, titled “the 55th [translation].” There, I had told my story with the book, without knowing it was not yet over. In a few hours, I had a plane to catch to Yerevan, where I would be joined by Paulo Coelho himself for a series of book events.

The Pilgrimage

A large crowd of journalist, photographers and cameramen had gathered right outside the VIP Lounge at the Zvartnots Airport in Yerevan. “Where is Khatchig?” asked the man in dark clothes coming out of the VIP room. As I approached and we embraced, he made his first statement to the media: “He is too young to be a translator.”

“And too old to be Santiago,” I thought.

“The Pilgrim has arrived to the land of Pilgrimages: to yerkir Hayastan,” wrote the daily Hayastani Hanrapetudyun a few days later.

As Armenia was bracing for the greatest literary events in its history, Coelho had other things in mind. He had an Armenian driver, he went to Armenian restaurants in Paris, he had met many Armenians in the Diaspora and heard so much about their heritage and their country, and now, he was on a pilgrimage to discover both, first-hand.

We strolled in the streets of Yerevan that night. The following day, when he was asked about his impressions of the city, he said that the buildings and streets are almost the same everywhere around the world. “It is the people that make the difference, and my best impression was the people,” he added.

Weeks before his arrival, as we were preparing the program of his week-long visit, Coelho’s literary agency stressed that the author wanted to spend time with the people, with his readers, and that official meetings had to be minimal. We ended up including lunch with the president of Armenia Robert Kocharian at the Parajanov Museum, a visit to the Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II at Etchmiadzin, and a meeting with the Minister of Culture Hovig Hoveyan in the program.

On October 6, 2004, the book-launching event dedicated to the translation into Armenian of The Alchemist took place at the Writers’ Union Great Hall. Organized by Hamazkayin and the Writers’ Union of Armenia, the event was a huge success. The hall was packed with people hours before the event, and hundreds of latecomers waited outside, pushing at the gates that were closed because the hall couldn’t handle any more people.

In my introductory speech, I told my story with The Alchemist, beginning, as always, in China. I said, “Just like Paulo, I, too, believe we have to go to far away lands, sometimes, to find treasures hidden in our backyard. And for us, Diaspora Armenians, whose grandparents had to walk through deserts in much harsher conditions than Santiago did in his quest, the real treasures are hidden here, in Armenia, whether we realize it or not.”

In his speech, Coelho, who Publishing Trends had declared the number one best-selling author a year before, also alluded to the Armenian Diaspora saying he believed that one day, Diaspora Armenians would return, like rain, to the land of their ancestors, bringing with them all that they have learned and accomplished.

“At the Writers’ Union Hall there was no room to cast a needle,” wrote the weekly Yerkir in its coverage of the event. “We cannot recall any other time when that hall was packed like that.” In its history, the Writers’ Union had witnessed such an event only once, and that was during the visit of William Saroyan to Yerevan, wrote Grakan Tert.

Coelho’s second meeting with Armenian readers came two days later in the Tcharents Hall at Yerevan State University. Some 900 people packed the hall, with many sitting on the floor or leaning against the walls. Coelho said he did not want to give a speech and, instead, invited 10 students to the podium and gave them each a chance to ask a question.

I was translating Paulo’s answers to Armenian. At one point, replying to a question on his most recent novel Eleven Minutes, Paulo started talking about sex. While I was having difficulty translating words like “masturbation,” “orgasm”, “penis” and “vagina,” and blushing every now and then, the audience was having a blast. Rarely, if ever, had a speaker talked so openly about sex on that podium.

Asked whether at some point he would write a novel on Armenia, Coelho said he never plans in advance what to write about. He compared himself to a sailor who sets out without having a specific destination. “I do not know if I will write a novel about Armenia,” he said. “But Armenia wrote a novel in my heart.”

A day later, the daily Azg wrote: “From the meetings of Paulo Coelho with the public in Yerevan, it became clear that it is not true to say the Armenian reader has became indifferent towards literature.”

In the following days, Coelho lay wreaths at the Armenian Genocide memorial, visited the Genocide Museum, and planted a tree at the memorial garden in Dzidzernagapert. He also went to Oshagan on Holy Translators’ Day, and lay a flower on the tomb of Mesrob Mashdots, the creator of the Armenian alphabet.

He was particularly impressed by the fact that the Armenians sanctified their translators, who enlightened their people after the alphabet was discovered. He said he had toured the world and had never encountered such a practice. Coelho later wrote an article, syndicated in newspapers around the world, on his visit to Armenia and specifically his impressions from the Holy Translators’ Day.

It was impossible to walk even a few steps on the streets in Yerevan without encountering an admirer of Coelho’s work asking for an autograph. He patiently autographed books for everyone. The utmost respect and love he showed to each and every reader was heartwarming indeed.

Once, when we were visiting the vernissage, the open-air art market in Yerevan, a painter in his 70s approached and hugged the author, giving him a painting as a gift. “Tell the world we love life, and we will prevail in the face of economic and political difficulties,” said the painter. His words, full of determination, reminded me of Paulo’s literary style: simple, but powerful, inspiring and heartwarming.

Before we knew it, we were at the Zvartnots Airport again. “Partir, c’est mourir un peu” (Leaving is a bit like dying), say the French. “Heratsman mech el ga mi veratarts” (There is a return in every departure), says an Armenian song. I believe in the latter.

***

Recently, I asked Paulo to send an email and wish a happy birthday to a female friend of mine, who is a great fan of his.

“A man in love asks, and a man who respects love obeys,” he wrote her a day later. “Happy Birthday!” As always, Paulo had found the best way to reach the heart of his readers.

Commemorating the Armenian Genocide

2006-03-23T07:53:00.000-08:00

Commemorating the Armenian Genocide
by Khatchig Mouradian
ZNet
April 23, 2006

“Today I bow down before the memory of all Armenians who lost their lives and look forward to the day when the souls of their grandchildren will finally be at peace. In order for our souls, however, to be at peace, and for this country [Turkey] to account for this crime against humanity, I guess people have to make many more journeys to the past to see the truth,” says Turkish Human Rights activist Nese Ozan. She is referring to the deportation and massacre of the Armenians in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, a genocide commemorated every year on April 24 by their descendents around the world.

Although the Armenian Genocide is acknowledged by most genocide scholars and many parliaments around the world, the Turkish state continues to vehemently deny that there was a state-sponsored annihilation process that took the lives of approximately 1.5 million Armenians living in their ancestral lands. The Armenians were, it argues, the victims of ethnic strife or war and starvation, just like many Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire during WWI. Moreover, according to the official historiography in Turkey, the number of the Armenians that died due to these “unfortunate events” is exaggerated.

Ozan, a metallurgy engineer by education, recounts to me how two years ago, she embarked on a “journey to the past” to find what is left of the Sourp Sarkis Church and the Mesropian School, two of the countless reminders in modern day Turkey of the destruction that befell upon the Armenians in 1915. “When you asked me to write what I feel about April 24, I remembered how we stood watching, engulfed in a deep sorrow, the ruins, hiding in them the memory of the long lost lives,” says Ozan.

A growing number of intellectuals and activists in Turkey are, like Ozan, speaking up about the importance of facing the past and recognizing the horrors committed against the Armenians. In a country shaped with a predominantly nationalist ideology, in a country where human rights violations and oppression of minorities had become the norm for the better part of the 20th century, speaking about one of the greatest taboos in Turkey could get one in all sorts of troubles. Examples abound. In 1994, for the first time in Turkey, a book affirming the Armenian Genocide was printed by publisher Ragip Zarakolu. Soon afterwards, his editorial office was bombed. More recently, world renowned Turkish author Orhan Pamuk was taken to court for “denigrating Turkish identity” by telling the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger in February 2005 that “30,000 Kurds and one million Armenians were killed in these lands [Turkey].” The court case was eventually dropped. Many similar cases, however, are pending, and many others have concluded in prison sentences and fines. Turkish scholars like Halil Berktay and Murat Belge, who publish and speak in Turkey about the mass annihilation of the Armenians, are bombarded with hate-mail and are subjected to slanders by Turkish nationalists.

Mujgan Arpat, a Turkish TV reporter and Human Rights activist, also commemorates the Armenian Genocide. “For me too, April 24 is the date marking the start of the Armenian Genocide planned by the leaders of Committee of Union and Progress (CUP),” she tells me.

In 1908, the CUP gained control in the Ottoman Empire, with promises of sweeping reforms and equal rights to all peoples of the empire. However, in 1913, the nationalist faction of the CUP, keen on cleansing Turkey from non-Muslim peoples, gained control of the CUP and, under the guise of World War I, embarked on the deportation and the massacre of the Armenians living in the Empire. “The Armenian Genocide was largely a by-product of the First World war –as far as its successful execution is concerned. But the preconditions were already created through an ideology that aimed at transforming the troublesome heterogeneous social structure of the Ottoman Empire into a more or less homogeneous one,” explains Taner Akcam, the first Turkish Scholar to publicly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, in his book “From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide” ( Zed Books, 2004).

However, this was not the first round of mass- killings against the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. As Arpat recounts, “In the pre-Genocide period, the perpetrators of the 1894-96 pogroms and 1909 massacres, also known as “Hamidiye massacres”, had gone unpunished and this was one of the factors that encouraged the perpetrators of the Genocide.”

“What stands in the way of Turkey’s confronting its past is the fact that the Turkish Republic was founded by the very same figures who were in leading positions in the Committee of Union and Progress,” notes Arpat.

According to many historians, the Turkish Republic was built on genocide and the Turkish state understands that recognizing the Armenian Genocide would shake its foundations. In an interview, Turkish sociologist Fatma Muge Gocek, an Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Michigan, agrees with them. However, “If there is a foundation and you know there are problems with it, would you live in that house?” she asks. “You would know that at one point, it's going to cause trouble. You know you'll eventually have to fix the foundation. Otherwise, the whole thing will collapse,” she notes.

Gocek herself had the following to say to the Armenians commemorating the 91st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide this year: “I want you to know that as an ethnic Turk I am not guilty, but I am responsible for the wounds that have been inflicted upon you, Armenians, for the last century and a half. I am responsible for the wounds that were first delivered upon you through an unjust deportation from your ancestral lands and through massacres in the hands of a government that should have been there to protect you. I am also responsible for the wounds caused by the Turkish state’s denial to this day of what happened to you back then. I am responsible because all of this occurred and still occurs in the country of which I am a citizen. Yet I want to tell you that I personally travel every year to your ancestral lands to envision what was once there and what is not now. When I am there, I realize again and again how much your departure has broken the human spirit and warped the land and the people. I become more and more aware of the darkness that has set in since the disappearance of so many lives, minds, hopes and dreams.”

Ayse Gunaysu, an activist from the Istanbul Branch of the Human Rights Association of Turkey, wrote the following when I asked her about her thoughts on the Armenian Genocide: “Asia Minor never found peace, happiness and well-being after the Armenian Genocide. A big curse fell upon this land. The settlements where once artisans, manufacturers, and tradesmen produced and traded goods, where theatres and schools disseminated knowledge and aesthetic fulfillment, where churches and monasteries refined the souls, where beautiful architecture embodied a great, ancient culture; in short, a civilized, lively urban world was turned into a rural area of vast, barren, silent, uninhabited land and settlements marked by buildings without a history and without a personality.”

Gunaysu continued that, “Governments brought highways and electricity and water supply systems, which are the symbols of civilization but the land didn’t even become half as civilized as it was a century ago. The history of the homeland of Armenians since then has always been marked with bloodshed. Kurdish uprisings, their violent suppression, massacres never ended. No democracy prevails; no hope for the future is nurtured. Yes, the Armenian Genocide left these lands damned. Only agony, deprivation, conflicts, killings, unsolved murders, disappearances under custody, rapes linger. Bloodshed continues. It will continue until the day Turkey surrenders to the call of conscience, sense of justice, and honest confrontation with its past.”

Unfortunately, 91 years after the Armenian Genocide, there are very few survivors of the horrors of 1915 who are still alive and who could be comforted by the words of courageous Turkish-born individuals who acknowledge their suffering and apologize. The descendents of those survivors, however, will lay wreaths on genocide memorials around the world today, knowing that a minority of Turks are also commemorating-- in their own way-- with them, in a country that will, hopefully, one day build its own memorials of the Armenian Genocide.

A Storyteller's Quest

2006-03-14T07:59:00.000-08:00

A Storyteller's Quest
by Khatchig Mouradian
ZNet
March 14, 2006

"Anatolia has always been a mosaic of flowers,
filling the world with flowers and light.
I want it to be the same today"
Yasar Kemal

The Anatolia Yasar Kemal, arguably the greatest Turkish author of the 20th century, wants to see and the Anatolia he can actually see today cannot possibly be considered the same region of Turkey. What was a century ago a mosaic of ethnic and religious groups (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Turks, Kurds, etc.) is now almost homogenized through blood and destruction, and the memory of many of the peoples that once dwelled in the region of Eastern Turkey is being negligently allowed to pass into oblivion.

A number of Turkish intellectuals are striving to push Turkey to face its past and recognize the "mosaic of flowers" that Anatolia once was. Will their vision one day become reality? Much depends on the changes currently taking place in Turkey. Novelist Elif Shafak, one of the courageous intellectuals struggling today for the preservation of memory and recognition of cultural diversity, spoke to me of Turkey today and the Turkey she would like to see tomorrow.

The Two Faces of Turkey

"I feel connected to so many things in Turkey, especially in Istanbul. The city, the people, the customs of women, the enchanting world of superstitions, my grandmother's almost magical cosmos, my mother's humanism, and the warmth, the sincerity of the people," Shafak tells me, speaking of her native country. "At the same time I feel no connection whatsoever to its main ideology, its state structure and army," she notes.

Turkey is the country of opposites which oftentimes, defying the laws of physics, repel one another. Eastern and Western, Islamic and secular at the same time, the country is torn between democracy and dictatorship, memory and amnesia. These dualities, bordering on schizophrenia, are unsettling for Shafak, an author of five published novels. "I think there are two undercurrents in Turkey, both very old. One is nationalist, exclusivist, xenophobic and reactionary. The other is cosmopolitan, Sufi, humanist, embracing. It is the second tide that I feel connected to," she says.

Not surprisingly, the first tide she mentions is not at all happy with her line of conduct. Hate-mail and accusations of being a traitor to her country have become commonplace for the young writer.

"The nationalist discourse in Turkey-- just like the Republicans in the USA-- is that if you are criticizing your government, you do not like your nation. This is a lie. Only and only if you care about something you will reflect upon it, give it further thought. I care about Turkey. It hurts me to be accused of hating my country," she explains.

However, Elif Shafak, who spent most of her childhood and adolescence in Europe and later moved to Turkey to pursue her studies, is anything but wrong when she points out that her country has come a long way in the last few years. "There are very important changes underway in Turkey. Sometimes, in the West, Turkey looks more black-and-white than it really is, but the fact remains that Turkey's civil society is multifaceted and very dynamic. Especially over the past two decades there have been fundamental transformations," she says.

"The bigger the change, the deeper the panic of those who want to preserve the status quo," she adds.

A cornered tiger is the fiercest, however, as an Eastern proverb says. This is why the prospect of membership to the European Union (EU) is deemed necessary by the country’s cosmopolitan undercurrent, which is struggling against the status quo. For decades, those, who have dared to challenge the official rhetoric on a wide spectrum of issues, have faced oppression, persecution, and imprisonment, and they know well that the only way not to take the country back in time is to keep it going in the direction of the EU. Shafak herself believes that Turkey's bid to join the EU "is an important process for progressive forces both within and outside the country". She adds: "Definitely the whole process will reinforce democracy, human rights and minority rights. It will diminish the role of the state apparatuses, and most importantly the shadow of the military in the political arena."

Dealing with the Turkish Society's 'Underbelly'

"For me, the recognition of 1915 is connected to my love for democracy and human rights," says Shafak. 1915 is the year when the Turkish government embarked on a genocidal campaign to exterminate the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. This topic remained the greatest of all taboos in Turkey until very recently.

Although the Armenian genocide is acknowledged by most genocide scholars and many parliaments around the world, the Turkish government's official stand maintains that the Armenians were not subjected to a state sponsored annihilation process that killed more than a million and a half people in 1915-16. The Armenians were, the Turkish official viewpoint argues, the victims of ethnic strife or war and starvation, just like many Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire during WWI. Moreover, according to the official historiography in Turkey, the number of the Armenians that died due to these "unfortunate events" is exaggerated.

Like a growing number of fellow Turkish intellectuals, it is against this policy of denial that Elif Shafak rages. "If we had been able to face the atrocities committed against the Armenians in Anatolia, it would have been more difficult for the Turkish state to commit atrocities against the Kurds," she argues.

"A society based on amnesia cannot have a mature democracy," she adds.

Why did she choose to tackle this very sensitive issue, knowing well that harassment and threats were inevitable? "I am a storyteller. If I cannot "feel" other people's pain and grief, I better quit what I am doing. So there is an emotional aspect for me in that I have always felt connected to those pushed to the margins and silenced rather than those at the center", she notes. "This is the pattern in each and every one of my novels; I deal with Turkish society's underbelly."

Her upcoming novel, "The Bastard of Istanbul", is no exception. The Turkish translation of the novel, titled “Baba ve Pic” was released in Turkey on March 8, 2006. The original novel in English will be released in the U.S. in January 2007 out of Penguin/Viking press. "The novel is highly critical of the sexist and nationalist fabric of Turkish society. It is the story of four generations of women in Istanbul. At some point their stories converge with the story of an Armenian woman and, thereby, an Armenian-American family. I have used this family in San Francisco and the family in Istanbul as mirrors," she explains. "Basically, the novel testifies to the struggle of amnesia and memory. It deals with painful pasts both at the individual and collective level," she adds.

The Turkey she would like to see in 2015, a century after the Armenian genocide, stands in deep contrast to the Turkey the world has known for the better part of the past century. It is "a Turkey that is part of EU, a Turkey where women do not get killed on the basis of "family honor", a Turkey where there is no gender discrimination, no violations against minorities; a Turkey which is not xenophobic, homophobic, where each and every individual is treated as valuably as the reflection of the Jamal side of God, its beauty."

It would be hard to disagree with Shafak that only in the Turkey she envisions can cosmopolitism overshadow nationalism and remembrance emerge victorious over denial.