02 October 2014

3491) Dissent Opinions -Counter Remarks On Perincek Switzerland Case & Case of Perinçek Against Switzerland, Turkish-Armenian Dispute: Who Has Something To Hide?

1)Dissent Opinions -Counter Remarks On Perincek Switzerland Case
2)Case of Perinçek Against Switzerland
3)The Turkish-Armenian Dispute: Who Has Something To Hide? . . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

3490) A Piece Of China For A Piece Of Turkey

By Tal Buenos 29.09.2014

World historiography and politics have yet to catch up with post-colonial times. However, the following discovery may push further toward international recognition of political realities that are strongly linked with a history of Western imperialism: there is documentation to show that the ones who sought to tear up the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century are the same people who spoke freely of carving up China.

The crossing paths of Western imperialism in China and Turkey are exposed in a letter that was sent on May 16, 1895 to James Bryce in London from Robert Stein of the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington.
. . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

01 October 2014

3489) Resolution With Justice Reparations For Armenian Genocide-Report Of Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group Final Report – Sep 2014

Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group:
Chair: Henry C. Theriault
Alfred de Zayas
Jermaine O. McCalpin
Ara Papian

This independent study was initially made possible by a grant from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun. The AGRSG wishes to express its deep appreciation to George Aghjayan for serving as a consultant regarding the analysis of financial reparations in Part 8 of this report. The AGRSG also gives special thanks to Ambassador John Evans and Drs. Levon Chorbajian, Susan Karamanian, Antranig Kasbarian, Asbed Kotchikian, Roger Smith, Ernesto Verdeja, and Margaret Urban Walker, each of whom provided invaluable comments on the draft of the report. Of course, though the AGRSG has tried to incorporate the many excellent suggestions from these commentators and tried to improve the report to address their insightful criticisms, all shortcomings of the report are the responsibility of the AGRSG. The positions taken and perspectives expressed are those of the AGRSG members alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun or any of the draft commentators.
. . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

30 September 2014

3488) Mr Nalbandian Did Not Tell the Truth

by Maxime Gauin

The op-ed published in Le Figaro by E. Nalbandian, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, and a longer version put on his Facebook page,[i] do not help at all the reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. On the contrary, it undermines this idea. By every aspect, this text is a repetition of classical, inaccurate assertions of anti-Turkish propaganda. Having answered the French version in French, I will now be answering the full version in English.

In Mr. Nalbandian’s op-ed, even the cliché of the “Ottoman night” is not spared to the reader:

“Like other empires, the Ottoman Empire was built upon and forcefully sustained through suppression of the basic rights and freedoms of many of its citizens.”

In fact, the Ottoman Empire was based on the millet system, which gave to the non-Muslims communities, especially the Greeks, the Armenians and the Jews, an autonomy that did not exist in Russia, for example. During the 19th century, the millet system was reformed, becoming more liberal and closer to a democracy. From 1839 to 1856, the Tanzimat (“reforms,” “reorganizations”) abolished the civil inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims.

On June 15, 1867, Prince Migidirç Dadian, an Armenian aristocrat who lived outside the Ottoman Empire, published a long article (reprinted later as a booklet) in the Revue des deux mondes (Paris), praising the Ottoman reforms and describing the situation of the Ottoman Armenians as satisfactory. Even after Abdülhamit II (1876-1909) had suspended the Ottoman Constitution in 1878, he left untouched the Constitutions of the non-Muslims millets, their schools, their churches or synagogues. In a detailed study, the Armenian scholar Mesrob K. Krikorian concluded that, relative to the population, the Armenians were the most represented ethnic group in the local Ottoman administration of eastern Anatolia, from 1860s to 1900s.[ii]
. . . . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

29 September 2014

3487) Book Review: Between Counterinsurgency and Genocide

Richard Outzen
September 18, 2014 · in Book Reviews
Edward J. Erickson, Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)

It is rare that a military historical study simultaneously informs professional debate and viscerally angers segments of the general audience, but Edward Erickson’s Ottomans and Armenians seems destined to do just that. The book provides valuable insights on the interrelationship of insurgency, counter-insurgency, atrocity, and conventional war.

Military officers and general readers will find in Erickson’s work a nuanced discussion of thedilemmas and shortcomings of counterinsurgency as a mode of warfare. They may also be surprised at the complexity of the situation faced by Ottoman armies in the east in 1915. This is a welcome contribution, given the still unsettled debate on counterinsurgency in the wake of drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan and the still contentious history surrounding the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The latter issue grants the book policy relevance beyond what one finds in most recent texts on counterinsurgency. This book can help stimulate and inform a higher level political debate that is certain to intensify over the coming year: whether the United States should formally recognize the killings of Armenians in eastern Anatolia during the First World War as genocide, in the centennial year of 1915.

Relatively little has been published in English specifically about the Ottoman eastern fronts. Past authors have either covered the charges of genocide without detailed treatment of military considerations (such as Hovannisian), or focused on conventional military operations with little on the deportations (such as Allen and Muratoff).

Erickson ignores neither Ottoman strategists nor the Armenian deportees; instead, he argues that the desperation of the former tragically led to the annihilation of the latter. He argues that the Ottoman political and military leadership did not initiate the brutal campaign of Armenian deportations in the Ottoman east in order to destroy a people, but did so in response to serious strategic threats to vulnerable lines of communication and to incitement of Armenian rebellion by the Entente powers. His conclusions are the result of his time studying Ottoman archival materials, providing a logical, evidence-based perspective about Ottoman motives and plans that have been viewed previously through polemical or conjectural
. . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !

28 September 2014

3486) Many Genocides of Raphael Lemkin

by Tal Buenos *, 11.09.2014

As Raphael Lemkin's studies on the concept of 'genocide' acutely reveal, political motivations often overshadow the integrity and impartiality of academic endeavors. This fact has recurred in many case studies including the Turkish- Armenian conflict . . .

Read The Full Post by Clicking Here Read Full Post !