British Foreign and Commonwealth Office rejects Turkish letter against 1916 British B

[Reincarnated Am]

14 November 2005

British Foreign and Commonwealth Office rejects Turkish Parliament’s letter against 1916 British Blue Book

In a further development in the on-going Blue Book saga, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has responded in kind to the Turkish Parliament’s criticism of the 1916 British Parliamentary Blue Book The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16. The Turkish letter of 28 April 2005 claimed that the Blue Book was British propaganda fabrication and that it vilified Ottoman Turks and continues to harm Turkish interests today.

However, in a letter dated 8 July 2005, the British Ambassador to Turkey, Sir Peter Westmacott, informed the Speaker of the Turkish Parliament that the Turkish Parliament's letter and enclosures criticising the Blue Book had been placed “in the Library of the House of Commons where they are available to all Members of Parliament” and where “it would act as a comment on the Blue Book itself and one to which historians have access.”

There has been no formal response from British MPs and Peers because they were not told of the existence of the Turkish letter, even though it was addressed to all members of the Houses of Parliament and solicited a response.

In his opening remarks, Ambassador Westmacott explained that the 1916 Blue Book, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16, was a Parliament-owned document and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office could not make a statement on it. “However,” Sir Westmacott added, “the Foreign and Commonwealth Office understands that whilst the publication of the Blue Book may have been regarded as desirable at the time in the context of the war effort, none of the individual reports has been refuted; and few have suggested moral or intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors, Lord Bryce and Arnold J. Toynbee.”

Sir Westmacott's words are significant because they represents a careful rejection of the Turkish position.

1/ Despite Sir Westmacott’s statement that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot say anything about the Blue Book because it is “a Parliament-owned document,” he actually made such a statement on behalf of the British Foreign Secretary. His words were not an oversight but a warning to Turkish Parliamentarians that the FCO could engage the Blue Book issue if need be.

2/ Sir Westmacott clearly chose to disagree with the two cardinal points of the Turkish letter when he pointed out that (a) truth and propaganda are not necessarily mutually exclusive and do not appear to be so in the blue book; (b) Bryce and Toynbee remain in good standing, and their roles in formulating the Blue Book have not been seriously challenged. This was a further suggestion that the British were able to dispel the Turkish criticism if need be.

3/ Finally, when making these statements, Sir Westmacott did not credit the offending Turkish letter and its assertions about the Blue Book with any weight at all. In fact his blanket rebuttal of Turkish criticisms is a measure of the British government sentiment regarding the Turkish position.

According to Ara Sarafian, who edited the “uncensored edition” of the 1916 Blue Book, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s response was a skilful effort to defuse the Armenian issue before it became a self-inflicted debacle for Turkish Parliamentarians. By burying the Turkish letter in the House of Commons library, the FCO has prevented British Parliamentarians from defending their own document in a forthright manner. It also answered allegations against Great Britain by Turkish Parliamentarians, and threatened to examine the 1916 Blue Book in a forthright manner, should the Turkish side insist on their allegations.

To date, there has been no response to the British ambassador’s letter from the Turkish Parliament.

[Gavur]

And there wont be!
This was expected
Odessity to challenge the Blue Book!
Perfect example of ones belief in their own B.S.

[Reincarnated Am]

London Response to Request to Reconsider Blue Book Concealed from Turkish Public

Source: PanARMENIAN.Net
URL: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=15513
Date: 23.11.2005 16:19 GMT+04:00


/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkish authorities have concealed from the society the response letter of the British Parliament that contained a refusal to satisfy the demand of Turkish MPs to reconsider the Blue Book, the Radical Turkish newspaper writes.

It should be reminded that the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its Ambassador to Turkey Sir Peter Westmacott, refused to consider the request made by the Turkish Parliament last April to reconsider the "Blue Book", a 1916 parliamentary report, formally titled, "Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16," that documents the systematic, deliberate and politically motivated nature of the Armenian Genocide. In a letter, Sir Westmacott officially explained that the Blue Book was drafted by the Parliament, not the Government. He emphasized however, that – contrarily to the insinuations of the Turkish parliamentarians – "none of the individual reports [presented in the document] has been refuted" and that the moral and intellectual probity of the authors, Lord Bryce and the prominent historian Arnold J. Toynbee – may not be questioned. The European Armenian Federation considers this letter by a senior representative of the United Kingdom a confirmation that its Government acknowledges the Armenian Genocide as an incontestable and thoroughly documented historical fact.

[Reincarnated Am]

“Blue Book” First Volume Published in Turkey

Source: PanARMENIAN.Net
URL: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=15620
Date: 30.11.2005 14:25 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Pencere Turkish publishing house has issued the first 550-page volume of “Blue Book”. The book written by Lord Bryce and prominent historian Arnold J. Toynbee is officially titled “Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 19915-1916” is one of the most important evidences of the Armenian Genocide. According to Marmara Turkish newspaper, the Turkish edition maintains an article by Turkish scientist Taner Akcam, who rated the address of the Turkish parliament to the British with a request to introduce changes into the book as “a temptation”.

It should be reminded that the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its Ambassador to Turkey Sir Peter Westmacott, refused to consider the request made by the Turkish Parliament last April to reconsider the "Blue Book", a 1916 parliamentary report that documents the systematic, deliberate and politically motivated nature of the Armenian Genocide. In a letter, Sir Westmacott officially explained that the Blue Book was drafted by the Parliament, not the Government. He emphasized however, that – contrarily to the insinuations of the Turkish parliamentarians – "none of the individual reports [presented in the document] has been refuted" and that the moral and intellectual probity of the authors, Lord Bryce and prominent historian Arnold J. Toynbee – may not be questioned. The European Armenian Federation considers this letter by a senior representative of the United Kingdom a confirmation that its Government acknowledges the Armenian Genocide as an incontestable and thoroughly documented historical fact.

[Gavur]

Turkey Is Expected To Establish Relations With Its Neighbors, Uk Ambassador To Armeni

TURKEY IS EXPECTED TO ESTABLISH RELATIONS WITH ITS NEIGHBORS, UK AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA

YEREVAN, JANUARY 8. ARMINFO. In the course of the long-lasting process of Turkey's admission to EU, it is expected to establish relations with its neighboring states. UK Ambassador to Armenia Thorda Abbot-Watt said during her final press conference in Yerevan.

Regarding the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, she said Great Britain was the first country in the world to condemn and inform the international community of the "events of 1915" (ed. Blue Book). Ambassador Watt said during her 3 year mission to Armenia, she visited the Armenian Genocide Memorial every year on April 24. She expressed hope for her country to follow her example.

To note, new Ambassador of UK to Armenia Tony Cantor arrives in Yerevan on January 16. It is the last appointment in his diplomatic career. He was UK Ambassador to Paraguay, wherein he learned Armenian.

[Gavur]

British Parliamentarians respond to Turkey on Armenian Genocide

1/27/2006 British Parliamentarians Lord Avebury

House of Lords
London SW1A 0AA
UK

26 January 2006

Following receipt of the appended letter from the Turkish Grand
National Assembly, a number of members from both British Houses of
Parliament have discussed the matter raised by Turkish
Parliamentarians and decided to send the following response to the
Turkish Grand National Assembly on the occasion of Holocaust Memorial
Day 2006.

(Please find attached Letter from Turkish Parliamentarians dated 28
April 2005; and Response to Turkish Letter from Gomidas Institute
dated 22 September 2005)

RESPONSE TO THE TURKISH GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY'S LETTER DATED 28
APRIL 2005

We are responding to the letter to the British Houses of Parliament
contesting the integrity of a British Parliamentary Blue Book
published in 1916, signed by Members of the Turkish Parliament in
April 2005 (?the letter?)

According to the letter, the report in question, ?The Treatment of
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-16? (?the Blue Book?) was a
wartime fabrication, which harmed Turkish interests during World War I
and continues to do so today. The central thesis of the Blue Book was
the argument that starting in 1915 Armenians were subjected to a
policy of mass annihilation in the Ottoman Empire. The letter claims
that the Blue Book was the source of allegations that the massacres
and deaths of Armenians during the forced deportations of 1915-16
constituted a Genocide, which the letter says is untrue.

The letter says that:

1. the 1916 report has no supporting documentation;
2. the report is contrived in essence, and
3. the main compiler and editor of the report admitted that the Blue Book
was simply a propaganda tool fabricated against Ottoman Turkey and its
German allies.

The letter insists that the core of the Blue Book was a set of
eyewitness accounts which were unreliable, and that the work was
composed in such a way as to conceal the flawed character of these key
reports. It maintains that withholding the names of some informants
and locations, supposedly to safeguard sources still in the Ottoman
Empire, was in reality, to conceal the weaknesses of the reports
themselves.

We are satisfied, from our knowledge of the Blue Book itself and of
many other contemporaneous accounts by eyewitnesses which have since
been published, and from consideration of the following report from
the Gomidas Institute (UK) that:

1. the Blue Book was compiled from first-hand testimonies which were
scrupulously reported by the distinguished editor, Arnold Toynbee;

2. the supporting documentation is readily accessible, a point
overlooked in the letter;

3. Arnold Toynbee did not say that the Blue Book was flawed as claimed
by the letter;

4. the letter wrongly asserts that the War Propaganda Bureau was the
sole source for all information regarding the situation in the Ottoman
Empire ? t here were hundreds of neutral consular officials and
missionaries;

5. the reports by neutrals have been reinforced and corroborated by
other United States and German consular reports, now in the public
domain, and by numerous accounts in the diaries and letters of
survivors;

6. the sources of the 150 eyewitness accounts published in the Blue
Book were not discovered recently in a War Propaganda Bureau document,
but have been known and published for many years.

We do not believe that the letter reflects opinions of Turkish
scholars who know this subject; on the contrary, it shows that the
Turkish Parliament is not properly informed about the Blue Book. We
invite them to a round table discussion, with our academic advisers,
in the hope that we can formulate a common statement on the historical
facts, and in the meanwhile we invite them to withdraw their letter to
the British Houses of Parliament, in the light of this Response.

SIGNED [Signatures on file at Lord Avebury's office]

HOUSE OF LORDS
Baroness D?Souza
Baroness Caroline Cox of Queensbury
Baroness Darcy de Knayth
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Baroness Flather
Baroness Park of Monmoth, CMG, OBE
Earl of Mar and Kellie
Lord Alderdice
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Lord Archer of Sandwell
Lord Avebury
Lord Biffen
Lord Hylton
Lord Pearson of Rannock
Lord Rea
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Lord Shannon
Lord Tordoff
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton
Right Reverend Richard Harries

HOUSE OF COMMONS
Andrew Mackinlay
Dr. Vincent Cable
Greg Hands
Helen Goodman
Hywel Williams
Justine Greening
Mark Field
Paul Holmes
Peter Bottomley
Piara Khabra
Robert Marris
Rudi Vis
Stephen Pound

[Gavur]

British MPs Defend Genocide Book

By Selcuk Gultasli, Brussels
Published: Monday, January 30, 2006
zaman.com


The House of Lords and the House of Commons, in an unofficial reply to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), wanted the letter written on 28 April 2005 to be retracted.

In the response letter, which was "unofficial" due to a rejection of the head of the British Parliament to intervene, the TBMM was asked to host a conference on the issue. The letter, which was sent to Turkish Parliamentary Speaker Bulent Arinc and the Turkish Embassy in London on January 26, was signed by 20 members of the House of Lords and 13 members of the House of Commons. Lord Avebury, campaigning for the letter to be published, told Zaman the letter was not attached an "official" label despite all their efforts.

According to the explanation released by Lord Avebury's office on January 26, the letter sent by the TBMM on April 28 was responding to six items. According to the reply letter:

The "Blue Book" was written by Arnold Toynbee and based on the testimony of people who witnessed the events.

The documents supporting the book can easily be accessed; however, this detail was ignored in the Assembly’s letter. Arnold Toynbee did not say the Blue Book was flawed as claimed in the letter.

The letter claims the only source used in the book was the British 'War Propaganda Bureau'. This is not true. There are hundreds of impartial consulate officials and missionaries verifying the events at the time.

Reports of the impartial have been supported by German and American diplomatic correspondence.

The testimony of people, published in Blue Book, was not found in any documents of a nearby war propaganda bureau. These events have long been known and have been published for years.

The unofficial reply of the Houses of Lords and Commons claimed the TBMM has been misinformed about the issue and the parliament’s letter does not reflect the opinions of the Turkish academicians acquainted with the issue. The letter, inviting the TBMM to hold a round-table conference on the issue, seems to have been written with utmost care. The reply ends with a call for the TBMM to retract its letter dated April 28.



’We should discuss in a neutral zone with experts’


Liberal Democrat Lord Avebury, leading the campaign in Britain, said the issue should be discussed in a neutral zone with experts.

Lord Avebury told Zaman the letter from the Turkish Parliament did not surprise him; on the contrary, he was "pleased" with the issue being brought up and being open to debate.

Avebury, frequently stressing that they wrote the letter very carefully, said "we tried to restrict ourselves to the "Blue Book" and we did not go into a discussion about the events between 1915 and 1916". When asked "Why were you so late in replying to the Turkish parliament?" Lord Avebury responded: "We tried hard to get an official answer from the British parliament. We exchanged letters with the parliamentary speaker; however, he clarified that the matter is political and does not want to intervene. Later, we discussed 'if we remain silent, will it mean that we accept the Turkish claims, and so we decided not to remain silent. This process took time, of course."

Avebury, reminding that Armenian President Robert Kocaryan rejected theTurkish prime minister's proposal to discuss the issue, said:" naturally, you can't accept it if you are under pressure. Turkey should first remove the embargo on Armenia. Only after that time, such proposals can be meaningful". Lord Avebury was also asked what their response would be if Turkey refuses to retract the letter. "First we expect Turkey to accept our round table offer and then, according to Turkey's attitude, we will decide on the next step,” Avebury replied.

Ara Sarafian, the Armenian and an Archive Historian and editor of the new edition of the Blue Book, told Zaman that if Turkey does not retreat from the Blue Book issue, Britain will handle it at an official level and will react to Ankara's discontent.

[Gavur]

Blue Book Turkish Publishers to Stand Trial

02.05.2006 00:40 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Member of the Republican Party of Turkey, Turkish MP Sukur Elekdar brought a suit against the authors of the Turkish version of the Blue Book, the collection of documents of the annihilation of Armenians in Turkey. Elekdar asserts the introduction slanders him. The MP demands to amend the “moral damage” with $15 thousand. Besides, Elekdar raises a claim to author of the opening address Taner Akcam, over the article published in Bikirim Turkish magazine last year.

In the article Elekdar was criticized as one of the authors of the letter addressed to the British parliamentarians with a demand to refute the data published in the book. The authors of the Turkish version of the book – Umit Erdoglu, Taner Akcam and translator Ahmet Guner will stand trial May 30, 2006, reported IA Regnum with a reference to Bianet.

To note the Blue Book, formally knows as “Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1919” is a report heard by the British parliament in 1916. The document proves that the Armenian Genocide was planned.

Turkish MPs requested the House of Commons to “clarify the issue with the Blue Book”. The UK Foreign Ministry in the person of Ambassador Peter Westmacott stated it refuses to discuss the address, since the “materials the book contains were not refuted and the authority of its authors cannot be doubted.”

[Gavur]

An Interview With Ara Sarafian

An interview with Ara Sarafian - Turkish review VIRGUL- Issue 95 - May 2006


dimanche 4 juin 2006, Stéphane/armenews







AN INTERVIEW WITH ARA SARAFIAN

published in the monthly book review Virgul, Issue 95, May 2006

OSMAN KOKER : If I remember right your name was first heard in Turkey in the year 1995 when your research at the Ottoman Archives was interrupted by the officials there. In the past few years your name is mentioned in connection with the “Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916”, known as the "Blue Book".

At the conference in the Istanbul University on 15-17 March you made a presentation about the Blue Book. Why did you choose the Blue Book as your topic ?

ARA SARAFIAN : I chose this subject because it is topical in Turkey, and because the Blue Book issue reflects the disturbing face of the official Turkish thesis on the Armenian Genocide. The whole case against the Blue Book, according to the official Turkish thesis, relies on deliberate misinformation about the subject. This is why I call many of my antagonists “denier” of the Armenian Genocide rather than people I disagree with.

O.K. : How was the Blue Book prepared ?

A.S. : The Blue Book was originally compiled as a report. We do not know how the decision was taken to request such a report, but certainly we do know that its compilers, Arnold Toynbee and James Bryce, acted in good faith when putting it together. We can make this assertions because we have Toynbee’s working papers from this period (including his correspondence with Bryce), as well as his later published works where he talks about the Blue Book and the Armenian Genocide.

O.K. : What are the criteria employed in deciding to include a witness account in the book ? Do you think these criteria are reliable ?

A.S. : The key criteria for the inclusion of reports in the Blue Book was that sources had to be authentic primary records (eye-witness accounts). Most of these reports were from a neutral United States, which had its consulates in the interior of the Ottoman Empire until April 1917. These consuls reported what they saw around them, and they also forwarded other reports written by Americans and non-Americans in these regions, such as the letters of American, German, or Swiss missionaries.

Given these source of information, Toynbee and Bryce did not doubt the originality of these accounts from the Ottoman Empire, and they judged their value as primary sources on a record by record basis.

I think the criteria used by Toynbee and Bryce to gather and assess their materials were creditworthy under the circumstances. They even made provisions for possible errors creeping in by basing their case on the weight of all the evidence without relying on one or two documents. They also, for example, made sure that, the core narrative of events rested on the evidence of Americans, Germans and other foreigners, in case the “native evidence” (those from Armenian or Assyrian sources) may have overstated what they saw.

In fact, when they did so, they realised that the strongest reports were provided by non-Armenians, and that the “native evidence” merely provided additional information.

According to the available evidence, the report that was compiled by Bryce and Toynbee was accepted as a Parliamentary Blue Book in the summer of 1916 because of the strong case it represented. Certainly Toynbee had no idea that the report he compiled would become a Parliamentary report.

The strength of the Blue Book today lies in the fact that we have a complete record of how it was put together. We also know where (most of) the original documentation came from, as well as how these documents were selected from a wider body of archival records in the United States. This is why we can still find the original records today (and can not simply speculate about their real or fictitious origins).

I used these archival and published sources to carefully annotate my critical edition of the 1916 work.

O.K. : Do you think we can refer to the Blue Book as a propaganda tool ? What were the means/methods used by the British in their propaganda efforts at that time ?

A.S. : The British used propaganda as part of their war effort. Some of this was crude, and some of it not so crude. The British government was careful such propaganda did not backfire. That is why they did not publish anything on Ottoman Turkey early in the war (for example when they were landing at Gallipoli), because they did not have reliable information. They were concerned that, if they made a poor case against the Ottoman Empire, it would offend the Muslim population of the British Empire. The first pamphlet they printed, not under an official title, was after October 1915-when they first began receiving reliable information about the destruction of Armenians. In fact, the basis of that booklet was a speech Bryce made in Parliament, based on the new evidence from the USA. Toynbee was asked to create a publication from Bryce’s speech, which is what he did, and it was published under his own name.

As more evidence of atrocities against Armenians was revealed, Toynbee and Bryce continued to collect such records in a more formal way in February 1916, for a more critical and systematic report. Once the decision was taken to publish the Blue Book, it was used for effective propaganda purposes. However, the work itself was not compromised by crude propaganda considerations, nor fabricated as some deniers of the Armenian Genocide like to suggest. The Blue Book was compiled to a high academic standard, and the archival records we have today support this point out.

O.K. : As you know, Ottoman Empire too published a book, “Ermeni Komitelerinin Amal ve Harekat-i Ihtilaliyesi”, for propaganda purposes about the Armenian issue during the WWI. What can you say on this book ?

A.S. : Regarding Ottoman wartime propaganda against Armenians, it cannot be compared with the Blue Book. Turkish nationalists have republished the Ottoman government’s anti-Armenian propaganda without serious examination where the records came from, who compiled and edited them, who forwarded them to the compilers, where the original materials are today, how records were included or excluded from the Ottoman publication, etc. It would be an interesting exercise for the TTK (Turkish History Association) to undertake and publish such an annotated republication, as the Gomidas Institute has done for the Blue Book.

O.K. : You are the editor of the 2000 "uncensored" edition of the Blue Book ? What does "uncensored" mean ?

A.S. : I am the editor of the 2000 and the 2005 “uncensored” editions ! The latter one came out last year with minor additions in the introduction.

I decided to call my annotated republication the “uncensored edition” because I included information that was left out of the original publication. In 1916, many of the witnesses whose reports appeared in the Blue Book, were still in the Ottoman Empire (for example, the US consuls in Trabzon, Harput, Aleppo, Mersin). The British could not reveal the identities of these people for obvious reasons. In other cases, the eyewitness accounts were so specific, that the identities of the sources inside the Ottoman Empire could be revealed by the witness statements, so some place names also had to be obscured as well. When Toynbee censured such information he also placed it into a confidential key, which was not made generally available-except to trusted individuals. Toynbee also explained all of this in his introduction to the main volume.

The confidential key was made public after WWI and has been in print for the past 50 years. So, when we reproduced the Blue Book at the Gomidas Institute, we also put all of this information back into the main work. This is why we called it the “uncensored edition,” because we put all of the missing information that was taken out in 1916 was put back into the main text.

Deniers of the Blue Book today do not acknowledge these facts and argue that the Blue Book hid its sources because the report used by the British were fictitious ! Recently, at the Istanbul University Symposium, Sukru Elekdag claimed that Justin McCarthy had just “discovered” a copy of the key in the British National Archives at Kew, and that the key showed that the reports comprising the Blue Book were not creditworthy. Of course, Elekdag’s assertions remain absurd : as mentioned before, the key to the Blue Book has been available for many decades. Furthermore, if one looked at McCarthy’s work over the last 20 years, one can see in his bibliographies that he has been consulting archival collections that have included the confidential key (most notably the Toynbee Papers, Record Group of the State Department). In fact the same is also true for other deniers, such as Mim Kemal Öke, Salahi Sonyel, Kamuran Gurun and others. The publication of the “uncensored edition” of the Blue Book has forced McCarthy to change his position, but it is not enough to save him. He has acknowledged the key only to claim (again wrongly) that the content of the Blue Book is inadequate.

Other than collapsing the confidential key back into the main Blue Book, I also used the Toynbee Papers in the British National Archives to trace the original records that were sent to him. Having traced the bulk of these records to the United States National Archives, I checked if the reports sent to the British were selective (i.e. were there any reports which did not support the Armenian Genocide thesis ?), and if the accounts that were sent were changed by communicants in the USA or by Bryce and Toynbee themselves. I then annotated the blue book with this additional information, including full citations where the original records could be found, and I gave my analysis in a new introduction to the “uncensored” Blue Book.

What were the results ? The Blue Book was exactly what it claimed it was in its original introduction. It was carefully put together with the authenticity of each document examined. I can also say that the U.S. reports appearing in the Blue Book were not selective nor distorted. In fact, if we added all of the missing records from the State Department files (i.e.including those which were not sent to the British in 1916), the Blue Book thesis would actually be strengthened. Some of the worst accounts about the Armenian Genocide were not made public by the Americans-but we can certainly read them today.

I have also published these sources in another book called “United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-17” and these records (and more) will soon appear on the internet on www.gomidas.org.

O.K. : Turkish retired ambassador and member of parliament Sukru Elekdag said, in the conference at the Istanbul University, that the Blue Book was the "last fortress of the Armenian genocide allegations". Is this true ? Aren’t there any other publications or archival records on Armenian genocide.

A.S. : Sukru Elekdag is like the captain of a sinking ship who continues telling his passengers that he knows what he is doing. The Blue Book issue is a personal debacle for him, as well as others who have worked for him on this issue. The choice of staking Turkey’s reputation on the denial of the Blue Book was a political blunder which will only bring shame to the Turkish republic. I say the Turkish republic because Elekdag managed to get the whole TGNA behind him on this issue. I do not feel sorry for Elekdag, but I feel sorry for those well meaning Turks who trusted his judgement.

Furthermore, at the Istanbul University symposium, Elekdag claimed that his Blue Book campaign was part of the Turkish government’s peace initiative last year to resolve the Turkish-Armenian issue and to hand down a peaceful legacy to future generations of Armenians,Turks (and presumably Kurds). If his Blue Book campaign is a measure of that initiative, then we have to questions the actual peaceful intentions of the Turkish authorities.

Elekdag and his supporters seem to be mocking us when addressing the Armenian issue. They seem to believe that they are in a position of power, and that they think they can get away with anything they want. They are part of the problem in Turkish-Armenian relations today, not part of the solution.

I suggest Turkish intellectuals consider carefully the case I am making here. The Blue Book issue is very instructive how Turkey looks in the outside world-especially as the TGNA has made it into an international issue.

I believe the most important sources that are available on the Armenian Genocide are the memoirs of Armenian survivors. Many of these sources are incredibly detailed and provide the perspective of victims. Then there are the diplomatic records of the United States, Germany, Italy and other countries. Of course Ottoman records have their own significance, though I cannot comment on them. I was only recently readmitted back into Ottoman archives and I hope to have the opportunity to return to Turkey and work with such materials as well.

The Gomidas Institute has published the memoirs and diaries of foreign diplomats and missionaries, such as the diaries of Ambassador Morgenthau. The latter manuscript was published in its entirety, because it is a crucial primary source. It also supports Morgenthau’s stance on the Armenian issue. Most people in Turkey know about Morgenthau because of Heath Lowry’s booklet which misrepresents Morgenthau’s reports and diaries and castigating the American ambassador as some sort of an Armenian puppet. Heath Lowry’s assessment of Morgenthau is wrong and part of Elekdag’s denialist campaign from the 1980s. Lowry and Elekdag have worked together closely to deny the Armenian Genocide. In fact, there was a big scandal about this very subject not so long ago, following a clerical error at the Turkish embassy, when Lowry’s correspondence with Elekdag, where they discussed the denial of the Armenian Genocide, was sent to an American scholar. That scholar exposed this correspondence and there is plenty of information about that scandal on the internet.

The Gomidas Institute is currently fund-raising so that it can continue its research and publishing work, in English, Armenian and hopefully Turkish. Right now we have a number of key books to publish, including translations in our new Turkish language series.

However, as an independent academic institution, the Gomidas Institute has no government or other institutional backing. We are also not a lobbying organisation. We have to raise funds for each project we undertake and each book we publish. Sometimes we have to refuse funding because potential sponsors try to twist our work for partisan purposes. Like many other institutions, we have to remain vigilant to maintaining our academic integrity. There is no question where we stand in such matters. I hope we will continue our work and start cooperating with similar institutions in Turkey.

O.K. : Have you come across reference to a specific incident mentioned in the Blue Book in some other records/archival documents or books ?

A.S. : Yes. For example, the events in Harpout, including the mass murder of Armenian community leaders are corroborated in the diaries of Maria Jacobsen and Tacy Atkinson, as well as the memoirs of Henry Riggs. Similarly, the appalling condition of Armenian deportees in Osmaniye are corroborated by many sources, including the diaries of an Armenian schoolboy from Corum, Vahram Dadrian. There are many such examples.

O.K. : What do you think is the significance of the Istanbul University symposium on the future of Turkish Armenian relations ? And what are your expectations to follow ?

A.S. : By holding this conference, the participants at the Istanbul University symposium demonstrated a fundamental point : the treatment of Armenians in 1915, including the Armenian Genocide thesis, is a legitimate topic of discussion in Turkey today. This is a radical departure from the past, when the subject was both a taboo and proscribed by law. This does not mean that the official Turkish thesis, which does not recognize the Armenian Genocide, has changed. But it does mean that the subject is open to scrutiny and discussion.

I expect that there will be many participants in future discussions, where Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and other historians will agree and disagree on concrete historical issues regarding their common history. I hope it will be a fruitful endeavour.

Even now, many ethnic Turks do not agree with the official Turkish thesis, just as many Armenian historians do not agree with the established Armenian one. The important thing is that the Armenian Genocide (and the genocide of Assyrians) can now be addressed within the boundaries of sensible academic debates.

O.K. : It was a big surprise for us that Yusuf Halacoglu, head of the TTK (Turkish History Association), offered you to make researches together and you accepted it. Doesn’t the Gomidas Institute and the TTK stand in opposition to each other on the events of 1915 ?

A.S. : Despite all our differences in the past, I accepted Dr. Halacoglu’s offer in good faith. I will try to work with him and the TTK as well as I can. The TTK and the Gomidas Institute stands in opposition to each other on the events of 1915. But I hope we can show by our example that it is still possible to agree and disagree with each other in a scholarly manner, in the interest of truth, as well as peace. Besides, the TTK is not the only body that discusses the Armenian issue in Turkey. There are many other official and unofficial organisations, as well as private individuals, who already take part in such work and discussions. The Gomidas Institute is only one party in this debate.

O.K. : Don’t you see any pitfalls and difficulties ahead ?

A.S. : Yes, there is always the possibility of failure for all sorts of reasons. But that is not a reason not to try. Peace is a great prize we can all share together.