Tweet
This article makes a very valid point. At the bottom I have included a link that shows the final report
Armenian Genocide
THE ARMENIAN MIRROR-SPECTATOR: "WHY DO WE IGNORE ICTJ’S REPORT ON GENOCIDE?"
Washington, DC - The Armenian Assembly of America would like to call your attention to the following editorial published on March 8, 2008 in The Armenian Mirror-Specator entitled "Why Do We Ignore ICTJ’s Report on Genocide?"
Established in 1972, the Armenian Assembly is the largest Washington-based nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.
Below is the full text of the the editorial entitled "Why Do We Ignore ICTJ’s Report on Genocide?"
March 8, 2008
Why Do We Ignore ICTJ’s Report on Genocide?
Turkey’s current Genocide denial strategy is grounded on a specious proposal for a new joint study by Armenian and Turkish historians of the events of 1915-1923 although just that kind of study had already been done by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). The center’s report categorically concluded that the horrors suffered by Armenians in Ottoman Turkey during World War I met all the critical criteria of genocide as defined by the 1948 International Genocide Convention. That treaty was adopted by the international community of nations, including Turkey.
The Armenian and Turkish participants in the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, (TARC), whose membership was agreed to by both governments, jointly sponsored the ICTJ study. That center is a highly-respected institution whose mission includes the readiness "to assist countries pursuing accountability for past mass atrocity or human rights abuses." ICTJ scholars studies all the critical evidence and arguments submitted by both Turks and Armenians and after careful analysis concluded that the Armenian population of western Armenia had been victims of Genocide. Whereas ICTJ study’s strict mandate was to define 1915-1923 atrocities, it did not further comment whether Armenians could use its finding to seek reparations from Turkey. After all is said, its finding remains as powerful argument for our nation. Its verdict was so stark that Turks immediately denied its validity. That the Turks rejected the findings is understandable. They lost. But why have most Armenian political activists deliberately ignored the findings?
The reason for Armenian silence is self-evident. When TARC was formed, it generated an emotional opposition campaign led primarily by the ARF. Even though the Armenian government was consulted throughout the entire TARC process and approved of its mission, Yerevan distanced itself from the enterprise when the sharp attacks on TARC were hottest. Most other groups in the diaspora did as well. They were uncomfortable with the controversy and either shied away from it or joined the chorus of criticism.
We also took issue with TARC. But we objected to the adopted process of the effort and composition of the group and not its intent. In any case, whether TARC should have been organized differently or whether it made tactical or other mistakes, it is a fact, that its singular achievement, the ICTJ’s validation of the Armenian Genocide, was not recognized.
The Armenian Assembly has been the lone advocate of the ICTJ report. It consistently invoked the ICTJ verdict in statements issued before and during the congressional effort to pass Resolution 106 recognizing the Armenian Genocide. There were two other notable exceptions. Hrant Dink and former US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans. Hrant Dink said the formation of TARC and the ICTJ report gave him the opportunity to pursue his cause to gain Turkey’s acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. And Evans has cited the ICTJ report as one of the key factors that convinced him to publicly state the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. It is a pity that others have not done the same. We have needlessly deprived ourselves of a powerful argument in our efforts to gain Congress to enact the Armenian Genocide resolution.
Henceforth, the Armenian Mirror-Spectator will invoke the ICTJ report to counter Turkey’s new study ploy. We will expose that proposal as a smokescreen to hide Turkey’s true motive. Ankara fears the inevitability of congressional recognition and hopes that their offer will convince enough members of Congress to avoid enacting Resolution 106. They want their proposal to be seen as reasonable and a fair way to remove this vexing problem from public discussion.
We must not let that happen. Whatever the Armenian communities’ objections were to the TARC process the ICTJ verdict was an impressive achievement indeed. It is an important weapon in our arsenal of arguments to gain the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Turkish denial must be confronted always and everywhere and to deny us the compelling verdict of the ICTJ is both unwise and self-defeating.
Press Committee of the Armenian Mirror-Spectator
http://groong.usc.edu/ICTJ-analysis.html
Armenian Genocide
THE ARMENIAN MIRROR-SPECTATOR: "WHY DO WE IGNORE ICTJ’S REPORT ON GENOCIDE?"
Washington, DC - The Armenian Assembly of America would like to call your attention to the following editorial published on March 8, 2008 in The Armenian Mirror-Specator entitled "Why Do We Ignore ICTJ’s Report on Genocide?"
Established in 1972, the Armenian Assembly is the largest Washington-based nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness of Armenian issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.
Below is the full text of the the editorial entitled "Why Do We Ignore ICTJ’s Report on Genocide?"
March 8, 2008
Why Do We Ignore ICTJ’s Report on Genocide?
Turkey’s current Genocide denial strategy is grounded on a specious proposal for a new joint study by Armenian and Turkish historians of the events of 1915-1923 although just that kind of study had already been done by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). The center’s report categorically concluded that the horrors suffered by Armenians in Ottoman Turkey during World War I met all the critical criteria of genocide as defined by the 1948 International Genocide Convention. That treaty was adopted by the international community of nations, including Turkey.
The Armenian and Turkish participants in the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, (TARC), whose membership was agreed to by both governments, jointly sponsored the ICTJ study. That center is a highly-respected institution whose mission includes the readiness "to assist countries pursuing accountability for past mass atrocity or human rights abuses." ICTJ scholars studies all the critical evidence and arguments submitted by both Turks and Armenians and after careful analysis concluded that the Armenian population of western Armenia had been victims of Genocide. Whereas ICTJ study’s strict mandate was to define 1915-1923 atrocities, it did not further comment whether Armenians could use its finding to seek reparations from Turkey. After all is said, its finding remains as powerful argument for our nation. Its verdict was so stark that Turks immediately denied its validity. That the Turks rejected the findings is understandable. They lost. But why have most Armenian political activists deliberately ignored the findings?
The reason for Armenian silence is self-evident. When TARC was formed, it generated an emotional opposition campaign led primarily by the ARF. Even though the Armenian government was consulted throughout the entire TARC process and approved of its mission, Yerevan distanced itself from the enterprise when the sharp attacks on TARC were hottest. Most other groups in the diaspora did as well. They were uncomfortable with the controversy and either shied away from it or joined the chorus of criticism.
We also took issue with TARC. But we objected to the adopted process of the effort and composition of the group and not its intent. In any case, whether TARC should have been organized differently or whether it made tactical or other mistakes, it is a fact, that its singular achievement, the ICTJ’s validation of the Armenian Genocide, was not recognized.
The Armenian Assembly has been the lone advocate of the ICTJ report. It consistently invoked the ICTJ verdict in statements issued before and during the congressional effort to pass Resolution 106 recognizing the Armenian Genocide. There were two other notable exceptions. Hrant Dink and former US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans. Hrant Dink said the formation of TARC and the ICTJ report gave him the opportunity to pursue his cause to gain Turkey’s acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. And Evans has cited the ICTJ report as one of the key factors that convinced him to publicly state the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. It is a pity that others have not done the same. We have needlessly deprived ourselves of a powerful argument in our efforts to gain Congress to enact the Armenian Genocide resolution.
Henceforth, the Armenian Mirror-Spectator will invoke the ICTJ report to counter Turkey’s new study ploy. We will expose that proposal as a smokescreen to hide Turkey’s true motive. Ankara fears the inevitability of congressional recognition and hopes that their offer will convince enough members of Congress to avoid enacting Resolution 106. They want their proposal to be seen as reasonable and a fair way to remove this vexing problem from public discussion.
We must not let that happen. Whatever the Armenian communities’ objections were to the TARC process the ICTJ verdict was an impressive achievement indeed. It is an important weapon in our arsenal of arguments to gain the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Turkish denial must be confronted always and everywhere and to deny us the compelling verdict of the ICTJ is both unwise and self-defeating.
Press Committee of the Armenian Mirror-Spectator
http://groong.usc.edu/ICTJ-analysis.html