Sarkisian Points to ‘Sobering Parallels’ in Kessab’s History

President Serge Sarkisian made a press statement concerning the events in Kessab at the World Forum Convention Center in The Hague. The President expressed his deep concern over the events in Kessab. “All of us perfectly remember the history of Kessab, which was unfortunately, full of hellish realities deportations in the last century,” said Sarkisian.

Serge Sarkisian (Photo: president.am)

The President of Armenia reminded that the first scourge was back in April 1909 when the Turkish armed detachments invaded Kessab. The Armenians took shelter on the heights of Karadouran and on the coast. After setting Kessab on fire and plundering it, Turks made their way to Karadouran, burned and looted the houses of that district. A French ship transported Armenians to Latakia. After living in Latakia for one year, the population returned to Kessab and reconstructed their houses.
Sarkisian also recalled another date, 1915, when the Kessab population was deported during the Armenian Genocide. Armenians of Kessab were exiled in two directions: to Der Zor and to Jordan. Thousands died en route, the majority of whom in the desert of Der Zor.
“The third deportation of Kessab Armenians today is a serious challenge to ethnic minority rights’ protection mechanisms of the 21st century. I think everyone should realize these sobering parallels,” underlined Sarkisian.
The president thanked the Syrian authorities for the steps being taken to protect the Armenians in Kessab at this difficult moment.
“I have already instructed the diplomatic missions at the UN Headquarters in New York and Geneva to raise the issue of ensuring the security of the Armenians in Kessab and their safe return to their permanent places of residence at venues dealing with human rights and ethnic minorities,” said Sarkisian.
Also on March 24, the president had a discussion about the situation with the Catholicos Aram I.
Sarkisian said that the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in Syria will embark on a series of measures to support the Armenians of Kessab.

When Even ‘Terrorists’ Acknowledge Their Crimes

Special for The Armenian Weekly
For the past three years, Syrians have been terrorized by the ongoing conflict between the government and the various factions of the opposition. The destruction is staggering: 150,000 dead, 9 million displaced (refugees and IDPs), 3 million homes damaged, and half of the country’s infrastructure destroyed.
On March 8, the Martyrs of the Badr Brigade launched an offensive in the Meedan neighborhood of Aleppo. Later that evening, the brigade posted a Youtube video demonstrating the details of the operation.

“In response to the barrel attacks by the regime forces, we, the Martyrs of the Badr Brigade, will target the Syrian government bases in the Meedan and Suleymaniyeh neighborhoods,” said the leader of the brigade. “For their own protection, we urge civilians living near the Shabiha military bases to move out of those areas.”
The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Meedan and Suleymaniyeh neighborhoods are Armenians. Not surprisingly, the March 8 attacks damaged homes of Syrian-Armenians in Aleppo. “Go to hell you stupid people,” reacted one Syrian-Armenian civilian on social media. She later told me that her home had been destroyed in these attacks.

The ‘apology’

A few days later, the leadership of the Lewaa Ahfad al-Moursaleen, another rebel group fighting against the Assad regime, sent a letter of apology to the Syrian-Armenian leadership in Aleppo.
The letter stated:
“We, the leadership of the Ahfad al-Moursaleen Brigade, apologize to our Armenian brothers for the mistake that took place yesterday in the Meedan neighborhood.
“We affirm that we are moving forward with our revolution against the tyrant and his supporters. The Kurds and the Armenians are our brothers. Their suffering is our suffering. We urge all of you to stand with the revolution.”
The ferocity of the Syrian conflict has left no room for objectivity. Every aspect of this conflict is analyzed and presented based on the vantage point of the beholder. For the Syrian government and its supporters, the Martyrs of the Badr Brigade or the Ahfad al-Moursaleen Brigade qualify as terrorist groups, whereas the opponents of the Syrian government hail them as freedom fighters.
But while subjectivity is the order of the day in Syria, the fact remains that the March 8 attacks failed to cause any damage to the Syrian regime bases. The attacks resulted in the damaging of homes and buildings belonging to Syrian-Armenian civilians. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the attacks terrorized the Armenian community in Syria and, more importantly, the attacks constitute a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
But while violations of international humanitarian law and all norms of international law is a common feature of life in Syria these days, the ironic aspect of the March 8 attacks is that the buildings that were damaged were located across the street from the Karen Jeppe Armenian College. Karen Jeppe was the Danish missionary who took care of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide.
Whereas it took two days for “terrorists” in Syria to acknowledge their crimes and present an official apology to the Syrian-Armenian community, the Turkish government continues to pursue a policy of denial almost 100 years after the Armenian Genocide. If “terrorists” acknowledge their own crimes, then what does that say about the Turkish government?

Sassounian: Shifting Inter-Relationships between Armenia and Diaspora

The Diaspora Ministry of the Republic of Armenia invited a small group of scholars and analysts to Yerevan last December to discuss the diaspora’s changing role in relation to the homeland. The participants in the “Changing Diaspora in an Ever-changing World” roundtable came from Argentina, Armenia, Germany, Lebanon, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States.
The discussion centered on the formation of the diaspora, current challenges, Armenia-diaspora collaboration, improved links for closer cooperation between Armenia and the diaspora, and the quest for new working mechanisms and perspectives.
Excerpts from my presentation at the meeting follow.
“The diaspora encountered a completely new set of circumstances after Armenia’s independence. The sudden realization of the long-cherished dream of free Armenia caught many diasporans by surprise. New words appeared in their vocabulary: Artsakh (Karabagh), earthquake, blockade, protocol, opposition, coalition government, regime change.
“Most diasporans had a hard time distinguishing between the actions of an individual, group, or organization and the rights and obligations of a state. At the same time, Armenia’s new leaders could not fully comprehend the patriotic sentiments, wishes, and desires of Diasporan Armenians, causing a disconcerting rift between the two sides.
“Complicating matters, the diaspora is not a monolithic group, but is comprised of distinct subsets, having taken shape at different times in foreign lands under various cultural and linguistic influences.
“When asked by journalists in Armenia about the diaspora’s views on a particular issue, I have difficulty answering such a question. How can anyone encapsulate the diverse views of seven million diasporans? To reflect the opinion of the majority of the diaspora, one would need to form a pan-Armenian body, either by expanding the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund’s functions beyond fundraising or creating a brand new structure that would represent Armenians worldwide, except those in Armenia and Artsakh, based on the principle of ‘one man, one vote.’ The elected representatives would have the right to speak in the name of all Diaspora Armenians and meet periodically with the leadership of Armenia and Artsakh to consult and coordinate their priorities on pan-Armenian issues.
“Leaders of all three wings of the Armenian nation (Armenia, Artsakh, and Diaspora) can then discuss their respective positions, and agree on the role each would play. Such a division of labor is preferable over unending internal feuds and conflicts that sometimes take place, as was the case during the signing of the Armenia-Turkey protocols.
“It is incumbent upon Armenia’s leadership to be more sensitive on issues that are important for Diaspora Armenians and consult with them before taking final decisions.
“Understandably, Armenia’s leaders are not obliged to take orders from anyone outside the country’s borders. While having the final say over all matters, they nevertheless have the moral duty and obligation to consider the views of key diasporan organizations, in the absence of a diaspora-wide elected body. In any case, Armenia’s authorities are responsible before the nation for their actions. They are praised when taking the right decisions and criticized when they do not.
“It must be stated that an elective diaspora-wide structure, no matter how difficult to establish, would be far more inclusive and representative than appointed leaders—despite their devoted efforts—who merely represent their respective members. It is imperative to include large segments of our people in all activities, so that we become more effective in our endeavors, particularly at a time when Azerbaijan and Turkey are organizing their diasporas and spending tens of millions of dollars to undermine our just demands on the eve of the Genocide Centennial.
“As we often state: ‘Azerbaijan has oil, Georgia has a sea, and Armenia has a diaspora!’ However, a disorganized and dwindling diaspora would be of little value for our national cause. It can neither preserve itself nor be of any assistance to the homeland.
“We must do everything possible to have a powerful homeland and a strong diaspora. The survival of each is dependent on the vitality of the other. Despite the valiant efforts of the Diaspora Ministry, we must realize that the magnitude of what needs to be done is so enormous that it exceeds the capabilities of any one ministry. There is a clear need for the concerted efforts of Armenia’s entire leadership to make Diaspora Armenians feel welcome and at home!”

Turkey’s Hypocritical Threat Against Syria over Ancient Grave

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier March 20, 2014

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s threat to retaliate against anyone in Syria who dares to damage the tomb of Suleyman Shah, grandfather of Osman I, founder of the Ottoman Empire, is the latest manifestation of Turkish government’s utter hypocrisy.

Here is a country that has committed genocide against millions of its Christian subjects (Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks), confiscated their possessions, occupied their lands, destroyed thousands of churches, cemeteries and cultural monuments, and yet has the audacity to warn Syrians before any damage done to an ancient Ottoman grave!

While the tomb of every human being must be protected and treated with respect, Davutoglu’s threat is a flimsy excuse to interfere in internal Syrian affairs. Ironically, Suleyman Shah’s grave is located in an area not controlled by the Syrian government, but by al-Qaida Jihadists and other rebel groups who have been aided and armed by Turkey to topple Pres. Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The al-Qaida fighters, who have been clashing with other anti-Assad faction in the region where the Ottoman tomb is located, are the ones destroying graves, since radical Islamists believe that the veneration of tombs is idolatrous.

Turkey considers the plot of land in Syria where Suleyman Shah’s grave is situated to be sovereign Turkish territory based on the 1921 Treaty of Ankara signed between Turkey and France, which was occupying Syria at that time. According to that agreement, Turkey had the right to station guards and hoist its flag at that site. Ever since 1921, two dozen Turkish soldiers have been guarding the tomb around the clock.

Article 9 of the Ankara Treaty allocated to Turkey around 80,000 square feet of Syrian territory, 60 miles south of the Syrian-Turkish border. When the area around the tomb was flooded in 1974 by the newly-built Lake Assad, the grave was moved to a new location, 20 miles from the Turkish frontier. Despite the ongoing hostilities in Syria, Turkey has continued to maintain a contingent of its soldiers at the tomb.

In return for giving Turkey territorial rights over this ancient site, France obtained several economic concessions, including the right to have French companies manage the railroad traffic in parts of Turkey and exploit iron, chrome and silver mines for the next 99 years. This questionable trade-off may not be legal under international law, since a colonial power is bartering with someone else’s territory!

The 1921 Treaty also established “a special administrative regime” for Turks living in the district of Alexandretta, which was Syrian territory under the French mandate. In 1939, Alexandretta was completely severed from Syria and officially ceded to Turkey as the Hatay Province. After its independence from France in 1946, the Syrian government acknowledged Turkish sovereignty over the land where Suleyman Shah’s grave is located, but never accepted the give-away of Alexandretta to Turkey.

In a press conference held in Van last Friday, Foreign Minister Davutoglu warned that any attack on the Ottoman-era tomb in Syria “from the [Syrian] regime, radical groups or anyone else would be subject to retaliation from Turkey. In defending its sovereign territory, Turkey will take all necessary measures without any hesitation…. At the present time, there is no question of any intrusion targeting our territory [the tomb in Syria] and our soldiers, but we stand ready to take whatever steps needed in the event of a threat. The Turkish public need have no doubt in this regard.” Meanwhile, officials from the Turkish Foreign Ministry, General Staff, and National Intelligence Organization (MIT) met on March 13 to discuss the security of the Shah’s grave. Although Davutoglu did not specify what measures Turkey would take, the Turkish media speculated that it might send additional troops to guard their revered site.

In my view, Davutoglu’s threat is simply an exercise in saber-rattling against Syria in order to draw the Turkish public’s attention away from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent scandalous and possibly criminal behavior, on the eve of the March 30 municipal elections in Turkey.

International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies

Switzerland appeals ECHR ruling 

 

Bern, Switzerland—The International Association of Genocide and Human Rights Studies (A Division of the Zoryan Institute) (IIGHRS) and the Switzerland-Armenia Association (SAA) are pleased to announce that the Swiss Government announced today it will appeal the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on December 17, 2013, overturning the conviction of Dogu Perinçek for denying the Armenian Genocide.

The decision was made by the Swiss Federal Office of Justice to ask the ECHR’s Grand Chamber to review the ruling in order to clarify the scope available to Swiss authorities in applying the Swiss Criminal Code to combat racism. The anti-racism law was created in 1995 in order to comply with the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. See the press release of the Swiss Federal Office of Justice: https://www.bj.admin.ch/content/bj/en/home/dokumentation/medieninformationen/2014/2014-03-11.html

In 2007, Mr. Dogu Perinçek was convicted under the Swiss anti-racism law for publicly denying the Armenian Genocide. He failed to win two appeals in Swiss courts, then appealed to the ECHR. On December 17, 2013, the ECHR overturned this conviction on the grounds of freedom of speech.

The IIGHRS and the SAA have worked together since December, along with a team of scholars and experts in international human rights law, major Armenian organizations and individuals, as a strategic team to inform and educate Swiss public opinion.

Le Temps (Geneva), in covering this story, wrote, “Armenian associations in Switzerland are highly mobilized in collaboration with The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, which took a full-page advertisement in newspapers, including "Le Temps." A petition that has more than 10,000 signatures was also sent to the Minister of Justice and Police, Simonetta Sommaruga, for Switzerland to appeal.”
http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/66548094-a929-11e3-91cc-93ff9fa69117%7C0

Armenia & Turkey Clash Over Genocide At UN Security Council

RAG MAMOUL
an ADL PUBLICATION
Official Organ of the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party
Armenia & Turkey Clash Over Genocide
At UN Security Council
By: HARUT SASSOUNIAN
Monday, 10 March 2014 Volume # 9, Issue # 41/E Page 1
RAG MAMOUL receives material from around the world and in many languages. Our Liberal principles advocate ‘Freedom of speech’ as a mainstay of our beliefs; consequently the subjects and ideas presented will not necessarily reflect our point of view.
All published material is reviewed, however, we rely on the kind understanding of our audience when grammatical and spelling mistakes are missed. And in some rare cases, correction of submitted material is purposely not addressed, if it changes the implied context of the author.
Foreshadowing next year‟s Centennial commemorative events, the Armenian Genocide issue was discussed for the first time at the UN Security Council on January 29.
Armenia‟s Ambassador Garen Nazarian, addressing the main topic of the Security Council session, „War, its Lessons, and the Search for a Permanent Peace,‟ began his remarks with a subtle hint to Turkey on UN‟s peacemaking role: “to forge a deeper reconciliation among peoples, based on a shared narrative and memory of a troubled past. Often this process entails more than simply adopting declarations and resolutions, visiting and laying down flowers at victims‟ memorials or signing agreements or protocols
and shaking hands. To be lasting, reconciliation may require the settling of the past, recognition and acceptance of responsibility for committed crimes.”
Regarding lessons learned from the Armenian Genocide, Amb. Nazarian specifically mentioned that the “reconciliation process could be delayed for decades or even generations. This was the first modern genocide perpetrated under the cover of the First World War.” Armenia‟s representative went on to insist that “ending impunity for heinous mass atrocity crimes is vital for restoring justice and normalcy.”
future rather than his country‟s bloody past. Without realizing that he was condemning his own country, the Turkish delegate insisted that “those responsible for the most serious crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes, must be held accountable.” Amb. Cevik then went on to repeat his government‟s worn-out denials, claiming that “allegations of genocide regarding the 1915 events have never been legally or historically substantiated. In this same vein, there is neither political nor legal consensus as to the nature of those events…. We believe that deriving animosity from history by trying to imprint on others an incriminating and one-sided view of the past, and calling for selective compassion, is not the proper way of respecting the memory of many Turks, Armenians, and others who lost their lives during the First World War. It is therefore important to face history in its entirety, and through impartial scientific examination of historical records and archives, so that the right lessons may be drawn from history and the common fair memory can be reached.”
Amb. Nazarian, in his right of reply, expressed deep regret to hear the Turkish representative‟s “distorted explanations about the undeniable fact of the Armenian Genocide which took the lives of 1.5 million Armenian children, women and men living in the Ottoman Empire during the regime of Young Turks…. It began on April 24, 1915, and went on until 1923 -- the systematic and planned slaughter of the entire nation.”
Describing in detail the deportations and massacres culminating in genocide, Amb. Nazarian asserted that “this crime has been recognized by a number of [UN] member states and international organizations, including the United Nations and its subsidiary body -- the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.”
Monday, 10 March 2014 Volume # 9, Issue # 41/E Page 2
Amb. Nazarian also outlined the steps necessary for proper reconciliation between nations: “successfully reconciled societies and nations usually undergo an extensive process of restoring justice, including reparations to victims and their heirs in order to re-establish their national dignity and identity. It is also imperative to speak with one voice against the distortion of history, the denial of historical crimes, and negationism.”
In his response, Turkey‟s UN representative Halit Cevik, not surprisingly, focused on the
Ambassador Garen Nazarian
Halit Cevik
Monday, 10 March 2014 Volume # 9, Issue # 41/E Page 3
In a second reply to Amb. Nazarian, Turkey‟s representative became more subtle in his denialism: “We did not say that nothing happened in 1915. These events do not fit in the description of genocide which was defined in the [UN] Convention of 1948. Now, an Armenian delegation is raising that the 1915 events are genocide in the absence of any resolution or any decision of the International Court. So how do you expect us…,” before he could finish his statement, his cell phone rang, interrupting him in mid-sentence.
It is very likely that more such confrontations will take place with Turkey leading up to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide. Turkish officials do not seem to realize that the more
they deny and counter the Armenian activities, the more they help publicize the
Genocide and the just demands of the Armenian people. Meanwhile, thanks to the Turkish delegation‟s two responses to Amb. Nazarian statements, the Armenian Genocide was extensively discussed at the UN Security Council for the first time ever!

Switzerland was not a bystander of the Armenian Genocide then, and should not be a bystander to its denial now

Left: President Didier Burkhalter.

(RDB/Xavier Voirol)

Right: Former five

-

time President Giuseppe Motta.

.

THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GENOCIDE AND HUMAN RIGHTS STUDIES

O

n the occasion of the International Day

of Commemoration of the Holocaust

i

n

January of this year, Pres. Didier Burkhalter

said

:

...there are still some today who deny

the extent of the Holocaust...just as

they deny the extent of the other

crimes committed by the Nazis and of

other genocides. It is our duty to

reject this attitude and to counter it by

reminding people of the facts, of t

he

historical reality...Switzerland and

other

countries do not want to just

p

ay lip service to this, but to take

concrete action.

This echoes the speech of five

-

time Swiss

president Giuseppe Motta in the League of

Nations in September 1922, where he said

t

he following about the Armenians:

When we think that this people had a

population of about two and a half

millions, of which only 300,000 now

remain in Turkey, while half a million

are exiles, supported by charity...we

cannot refuse this poor, suffering

peop

le the tribute, not only of our

sympathy, but also of our

determination to assist it in the fullest

measure of our powers.

Indeed, the Swiss people

have always taken

action on behalf of the Armenians

out of

humanitarian concern

. In the Federal

Archives in

Berne there still exists the

famous pro

-

Armenian petition of 1896

-

1897

with the signatures of nearly half a million

people (13.7% of the population), asking the

federal government to intervene to stop the

killings of Christians in the Ottoman Empire.

T

he Swiss were often heroic in their fight

to aid the Armenians. From 1899

-

1922,

Jacob Künzler

and his wife Elizabeth

did

their best to alleviate the suffering of

Armenians in a mission hospital at the

crossroads of

the

death caravans on the way

to the Syrian Desert.

As extreme as their

experience was, some Swiss even put their

lives on the line

.

F

or example

,

one

Swiss

engineer was court

-

martialled because he

bravely gave

bread to the starving Armenian

women and children

of a deportation

convoy.

In 2007, a Turkish citizen was convicted

in the Lausanne Police Court of racial

discrimination for calling the Armenian

Genocide an “international lie.” Swiss courts

rejected two appeals, stating that the

Armenian Genocide, like th

e Jewish

Genocide, is a proven fact and is recognised

by Swiss legislation. However the European

Court of Human Rights (ECHR) overturned

this conviction on December 17, 2013, citing

the right to free speech. The problem with the

ruling is not the right to

free speech, which

most people would agree with. The problem

is that the ECHR made highly debatable

statements about the Armenian Genocide

that went far beyond the Court’s mandate or

competence.

The Court, while pointing out that it was

not called upon to

rule on either the veracity

of the Armenian massacres, or the

appropriateness of legally characterising

those acts as “genocide”, nevertheless

asserted its doubt that there could be a

general consensus about such events. Thus,

the Court, apparently unaware

of the

overwhelming body of published evidence,

unnecessarily called into question the

historical truth of the Armenian Genocide.

The Court took

the view that the notion

of genocide was a precise, narrowly defined

legal concept, only applicable when found

by an international court to be clearly

established. It thereby overlooked the body

of scholarly legal literature that affirms the

Armenian case

is genocide.

The Court further asserted, “The

rejection of the legal characterisation as

‘genocide’ of the 1915 events was not such

as to incite hatred against the Armenian

people,” and that there was no need in

Switzerland to punish an individual for

rac

ial discrimination by challenging this

legal characterization. Yet the Court stated

that “the negation of the Holocaust is today

the principal motor of anti

-

Semitism.”

In fact, the Human Rights Association in

Turkey has made a strong argument for the

racis

m inherent in the Armenian case. They

wrote, “...we are the most immediate, direct

witnesses of how the denial of the genocide

against Armenians and other Christian

ethnic groups of Asia Minor has right from

the start generated an anti

-

democratic

system, all

owing racist hatred, hate crimes,

and violation of freedom of expression and

human rights in general...This has paved

the way for Armenians in Turkey to be

treated as a ‘fifth column’ throughout the

Republican history, to be discriminated

against, to be dest

ined to lead their lives in

constant fear as their lives were threatened

during various nationalist upheavals and

pogroms that took place during the

Republican period.”

Denial has been called the final stage of

genocide. It dehumanizes the victims and

thei

r descendants as being unworthy of

con

cern and continues their victim

ization

through the psychological trauma of having

to endure the ongoing injustice. As such,

denial of the Armenian Genocide certainly

causes harm to Armenians, worldwide.

If the ECHR ruling

stands, it would

perpetuate

anti

-

Armenianism in Turkey and

elsewhere and

it will definitely

promote

racism.

Under the Swiss penal code, any act

of denying, belittling or justifying genocide

is a violation of the anti

-

racism law.

Pres.

Burkhalter

is right to call for

concrete action.

The Swiss Government has

a

moral

responsibility to appeal this ruling

and defend its laws against racism.

Switzerland was not a bystander of the

Armenian Genocide, and should not be a

bystander of the Armeni

an Genocide today.

On February 16

, 2014

a group of

scholars of Human Rights and Genocide

issued an open letter to the

Swiss

Justice

Minister

:

“We

do not take issue with the notion of

freedom of expression, something that

scholars agree is most often an essential

part of open, democratic society. We are,

however, concerned about elements of the

Court’s reasoning that a

re at odds with the

facts about the his

torical r

ecord on the

Armenian G

enocide of 1915, at odds with

an ethical understanding of denialism

...

We

believe it important that the government of

Switzerland request a re

e

xamination of the

Court

’

s judgment.

”

Taner Akçam

,

Clark University

Margaret Lavinia Anderson

,

University

of California Berkley

Joyce Apsel

, New York University

Yair Auron

, Open University of Israel

Peter Balakian

, Colgate University

Annette Becker

, University of Paris,

Institut Universitaire de France

Matthias Bjornlund

,

Danish Institute for

Stud

y Abroad

(DIS)

Donald Bloxham

, University of

Edinburgh

Professor Hamit Bozarslan

, Director,

EHESS, Paris

Cathy Caruth

, Cornell University

Frank Chalk

, Montreal Institute for

Genocide and Human Rights Studies

Israel Charny

, Past President

International

Association of Genocide

Scholars

(IAGS)

; Institute

on the

Holocaust and Genocide

Deborah Dwork

, Clark University

Helen Fein

, Independent Scholar

Marcelo Flores

, University of Siena

Donna

-

Lee Frieze

,

Deakin University,

David Gaunt

, Sodertorn University

Co

llege

Wolfgang Gust

, Independent Scholar,

Director armenocide.com.de

,

Hamburg

Herbert Hirsch

, Virginia Commonwealth

University; co

-

editor, Genocide Studies

International

Marianne Hirsch

, Columbia University

Tessa Hofmann

, Institute for East

European Studies

Richard Hovanissian

, Univers

ity of

California, Los Angeles

Raymond Kevorkian

, University of

Paris

-

VIII

-

Saint Denis

Hans

-

Lukas Kieser

, University of Zurich

Mark Levene

, University of

Southampton, UK

Robert Jay Lifton

,

Th

e City University

of New York

Deborah Lipstadt

, Emory

University

Wendy Lower

,

Claremont McKenna

College

Robert Melson

,

Purdue University; Past

President,

IAGS

Donald E. Miller

, University of Southern

California

A. Dirk Moses

, European University

Institute, Florence and Senior Editor,

Journal of Genocide Research

.

James R. Russell

, Harvard University

Roger W. Smith

,

College of William and

Mary; Past President,

IAGS

Leo Spitzer

,

Dartmouth College

Gregory Stanton

, George Mason

University; Past President,

IAGS

Yves Ternon

, Historian of modern

genocide, independent scholar, France.

Henry C. Theriault

, Worcester State

University; Co

-

Editor

-

in

-

Chief, Genocide

Studies and Pr

evention

Eric D. Weitz

, The City College of New

York/Graduate Center