Paylan during his address to Parliament on April 21, 2016, during which he called for an investigation into the killing of Armenian members of the Turkish Parliament during the Armenian Genocide (Photo: Garo Paylan Facebook page)
The bill which was introduced last week, also seeks to designate April 24—which marks the day in 1915 that the genocide began—as a national day of commemoration.
“Seeking to normalize the Armenian Genocide by tying it to war, making light of it and denying the events are part of the perpetuation of the official thesis… and has led to hate crimes against minorities throughout the republic’s history,” Paylan said in the draft bill, according to a copy obtained by the news outlet Eurasianet.
The proposed bill also calls for the establishment of a commission to investigate who was responsible for the genocide and to remove their names from streets, schools, and other public spaces throughout the country.
The bill also urges that Turkish citizenships be granted to the descendants of Armenian genocide survivors who were forced to leave Turkey.
“After these people were sent into exile in Ayas and Cankiri, the vast majority of them were killed. Among the ones sent into exile and killed were Dr. Nazaret Dagavaryan (Member of Ottoman Parliament), Armen Doryan (writer and journalist), Shavarsh Krisyan (editor of Marmnamarz magazine), Levon Larents (poet), Rupen Sevag (poet), Yenovk Sahen (actor), Siamanto (poet), Hagop Terziyan (writer and pharmacist), Daniel Varujan (poet), Krikor Yesayan (teacher and translator), Rupen Zartarian (writer and poet), Diran Kelekian (writer and Professor of Turkish language) and Krikor Zohrab (writer and Member of Ottoman Parliament),” the draft states.
“For Turkey to become a peaceful society, it needs a democratic and just approach to its collective memory… Recognizing, condemning, and compensating for the crimes committed as Turkey transitioned from an empire to a republic will allow for the construction of a peace-minded memory and, therefore, a society that can live together,” Paylan said in his introduction of the bill.
Paylan is a founding member of the HDP and is a deputy representing the third district in Istanbul. Paylan is also a member of Turkey’s Armenian community and has long been an activist on human rights and Kurdish and Armenian issues.
Prior to being elected to Turkey’s parliament in 2015, Paylan served on the central committee of HDP and also served on the management of Armenian schools in Istanbul. He has long promoted bilingual education and minority rights in Turkey and has been actively engaged in raising awareness on discrimination toward minorities, the rights of the Armenian community in Turkey, Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, and especially the Hrant Dink murder case. Mr. Paylan is from a family originally from Malatya.
Three weeks after his first election into Turkey’s Parliament on the HDP list, Paylan spoke to the Armenian Weekly about his path to parliament and the challenges of being an Armenian in Turkey’s political scene.
Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field druing the Armenian Genocide (Photo: Library of Congress)
Matthew Marasco was one of 11 students at the Wakefield, R.I.’s prestigious Prout School to graduate with an International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma. As a requirement of the IB diploma, students are required to write an “Extended Essay,” a research paper of up to 4,000 words. Matthew’s Extended Essay was a version of the following essay entitled “What Were the Main Causes of the Armenian Genocide?”
***
Investigation
History, be it familial, national, or ethnic, defines who one is as a person. Throughout human history, eras have been defined by periods of peace and times of conflict. As time has passed, the manner in which conflicts are carried out has evolved; therefore, history has innumerable variations of combat and harm. One of the most devastating types of conflict and assault upon a culture is genocide. According to Merriam-Webster, a genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” According to the United Nations, a genocide is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (framework). While each attempted human extermination has had its own unique and tragic backstory, there are some commonalities among them. Common factors seen in most genocides include racial and religious tensions, as well as desperation on the part of the “attacking” party. One of the most tragic and under-researched mass killings was the Armenian Genocide. The objective of this investigation is to explore the causes of this assault upon humanity and to examine its ramifications.
Before proceeding further, it is important to note that for the purpose of this investigation the assaults upon the Armenians will be referred to as a genocide, according to the Merriam-Webster definition. However, much of the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the “incident” as a genocide. Despite this, the term will be used throughout the remainder of this report.
To begin to fully understand the events that unfolded between 1915 and 1917, it is first important to understand the history of conflict, especially religious conflict, in the region. Violence between Christian and Islamic groups was nothing new to the Middle East by 1915; the region had already experienced the religious wars of the Crusades, a series of seven wars beginning in 1095 and continuing periodically until 1291, as well as the conquering of Constantinople, the center of the Christian world in the east, which was overrun by Muslims in May of 1453. Even during the times of Muhammad, religious wars were taking place, as he began conquering and absorbing areas into his domain. Indeed, religious conflicts did not end with the Crusades. Our modern world continues to suffer the consequences of the religious tension and intolerance from generations ago. One could argue that the current religious conflict between Muslims and Christians has been ongoing since 1095 and the First Crusade and continues still today during the age of terror. However, the time immediately before the events of 1915 was actually relatively peaceful, as the many groups under Ottoman rule coexisted without conflict.
This peaceful coexistence, though, met a swift end in 1915 with the beginning of a systematic slaughter and deportation of Armenians, who at the time were living throughout Turkey and parts of Russia. Armenia had been one of the most affluent and largest kingdoms in the Middle East, at one time controlling most of Turkey, the southern Russian provinces, and most of Iran (Hartunian XIV). Like many incidents of violence, the Armenian Genocide was not a spontaneous event (although it appeared to be to the international community), nor was it the result of a single action. Rather, there were many long-term and short-term factors, none of which in isolation could have sparked the mass bloodshed, but which combined to create the perfect storm. These incredibly interconnected factors included the racial, political, economic, and religious situations, as well as the history of the region, in particular the Ottoman Empire, at the turn of the 20th century. The Ottoman Empire was the most recent of a long line of invaders to control the Armenian kingdom in 1915; the once powerful kingdom had previously succumbed to Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, Seljuks, Mongols, Tartars, all before falling into Ottoman hands (Hartunian XIV).
The proverbial writing had been on the wall, as one Armenian recounts his conversation with a Turkish friend, “. . . One day, as I was with a Turkish official, he said to me ’My friend, there is no hope. No longer can the Armenian and the Turk live together. Whenever you find the opportunity, you will annihilate us; and whenever we find the opportunity, we will annihilate you. Now the opportunity is ours and we will do everything to harm you. The wise course for you, when the time comes, is to leave this country and never return.’ This Turk had spoken the truth. No longer could the Turk be a friend to the Armenian, or the Armenian a friend to the Turk” (Hartunian 1).
History
To begin, the first factor to be examined is the history of the Ottoman Empire, and how Armenians had been treated until the beginning of the genocide in 1915. In regards to this, there are two incredibly varying viewpoints. Some historians argue that the Armenians were not only treated as second class citizens, but they were treated as though they were not human. This takes into account the lack of civil rights available to Armenians, as well as the economic and societal restraints placed upon them. These included, but were not limited to, being forbidden to bear arms, leaving them at the mercy of the Muslim majority, as well as the inability to seek retribution in a court of law (Hartunian XIV). According to this viewpoint, as well as the fact that the the region, both formerly and later the nation of Armenia, had spent nearly 400 years under Turkish rule (this includes both the Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman Turks), it does not seem out of the realm of possibilities that this beaten down, ethnic and religious minority would eventually be faced with heinous violence and destruction. In fact, the abuses of 1915 were not an isolated incident, but rather a culmination of massacres, which had been taking place throughout the Ottoman reign in the region. During the year 1895-1896 nearly 30,000 Armenians were killed according to the orders of sultan Abdul Hamid II. The violence did not stop in 1917; the city of Smyrna, a primarily Armenian-occupied city, was burned in 1922 (Harutian XVII).
However, it is important to understand that there are some historians who paint a different picture. In fact, many argue that the treatment of Armenians under the rule of the Ottoman Turks was far from harsh. Those who support this theory site the treatment of conquered and colonized people in the territories of the western powers, which some would argue was actually harsher than the treatment of the Armenians. For example, in some ways, the Armenians had more freedom than their counterparts in India under British rule, and certainly more freedom than the former South American colonists of Spain. In fact, the Armenian minority in Turkey was actually quite economically and culturally prosperous, in spite of the aforementioned disadvantages they faced (Armenian National Institute). In addition, there had even been a period of reform prior to the Young Turks coming into power (a topic, which will be discussed in greater detail later) during which the Armenian people made great strides towards equality. There was, at this time, talk of establishing a constitutional government, which would guarantee the Armenians equal rights under the law. However, even those who adhere to this historical interpretation cannot argue that the Armenians were at any point, or on any level, considered the equal of the Turks, and that is a very dangerous thing. Dehumanization is the first step a ruling groups takes when an impending persecution is nearing, followed in quick succession by the removal of civil rights, the spread of propaganda, relocation, and eventually extermination.
Next, as already mentioned, a group known as the Young Turks, a reactionist group formed in response to the former Sultan Abdul Hamid II’s totalitarianism, had come to power in the Ottoman Empire shortly before the persecution of the Armenians, and this is certainly not a coincidence (Armenian National Institute.). The sultan, a dynastic title given to the traditional ruler of the Ottoman Empire, had given up absolute power in 1908, causing a power vacuum. The group known as the Young Turks took advantage of the situation, and seized power. Initially, the group was intending to make wide-sweeping reforms to create equality within the Empire by creating a constitutional government, which many Armenians supported. However, the party quickly split over whether liberal or conservative reform was needed to revitalize the Empire, and the radical conservative wing of the party found itself with uninhibited control thanks to a coup d’etat (Armenian National Institute). This radical wing promoted a “Turkey for the Turks” sentiment and created a “xenophobic (fear of those unlike oneself) Turkish nationalism” (Armenian National Institute). The Young Turks promoted this fear and dislike of outsiders, in particular of Armenians, through the use of their propagandist newspaper Harb Mecuasi, or “War Magazine” (Dadrian, 220). This is not uncommon; rather, seemingly all parties who attempted to create single party states used propagandist newspapers and magazines to spread their message.
One of the main goals of this group was to regain some of the honor and prestige lost during the Balkan War, and to reassert the dominance of the Ottoman Empire in the region (Armenian National Institute). One of the most effective ways to carry out this goal was by suppressing the ethnic minorities living within their borders to ensure no further uprisings, and to send a message to the newly autocratic peoples that their recently gained freedom would not last for long. These radical Muslim leaders found the perfect group to send the message in the Armenian population within Turkey, a population accustomed to maltreatment, and an economically successful ethnic and religious minority. During the Balkan War, many Armenians in the eastern reaches of the Empire had, in fact, joined forces with the Balkan uprisers and the Russians, much to the dismay of the Turkish government (Case). After the humiliating defeat at the hands of their former subjects, the Turks decided to round up the Armenians from these provinces, and relocate them into concentration camps. One survivor recounts his first impressions at a camp, saying, “I soon reached the concentration camp, where twelve thousand Armenians had already been herded—hungry, thirsty, naked, dirty, exhausted, already near death” (Hartunian, 85). Naturally, they were subject to innumerable and unimaginable abuses such as murder, rape, beatings, and food deprivation throughout the course of the journey, in what was the beginning of the massacre.
As previously mentioned, the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire at the time was quite wealthy, which is not a problem in and of itself, but became an issue because the Turkish population, and the government itself, were far from financially secure. Working as craftsmen and farmers, Armenians paid a lot of taxes to the Empire. This reasonably secure lifestyle contrasted greatly with that of “increasingly unruly Muslim tribes, who now constituted a vast, unemployed army” (Harutian XIV). In fact, the Ottoman Empire was referred to at the time as the “Sick Man” in Europe, due in no small part to the fact that many of the minority groups within the Empire, such as the Greeks, had begun uprisings; some had even gained independence during the first Balkan War. Watching these “inferior minority” groups succeed in a largely failing economy greatly angered and hurt the pride of many Turkish people, who became determined to put the Armenians “back in their place.”
To make matters worse, the first several years of World War I had been a complete disaster for the Ottoman Empire, and the new Young Turk government was running out of the funds needed to wage war. In light of this, it is reasonable to assume that part of the reason for the genocide was to acquire the wealth, which had been amassed by the Armenians (Armenian).
The Armenian populations in Tiflis and Baku controlled the majority of the local wealth—wealth which was desperately needed both by the Islamic civilians of the area, as well as the Young Turk government. Aside from the financial struggles in the war, the fighting itself was going poorly, and the Armenians caught the blame for this as well. As the government continued to turn its people against the Armenians, they portrayed the minority as the reason for the militaristic defeats, claiming that they were being undermined from within. To back up this claim, and to prevent any resistance to the impending assault, the Turkish government disarmed all of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The Young Turks then took advantage of the war, claiming that all Armenians, beginning with those in Anatolia, a region with a very high concentration of Armenians, and later extending to all who lived within the Empire, needed to be relocated due to “wartime emergencies.” This, however, was a simple guise to cover up the killing which would later take place (Dadrian 219).
Another cause for the persecution of Armenians between 1915 and 1917 was the religious tension created by the fact that they were a large group of Christians living under the rule of an Islamic nation. The Ottoman and Seljuk Empires had a unique geopolitical location in that they were located on the border between the Islamic Middle East and the Christian eastern Europe. The two empires had always viewed themselves as guardians of the Islamic faith, and believed it was their role to spread the Islamic faith throughout their territories. Furthermore, Armenia was not simply a Christian nation, but in the 4th century A.D., became the first nation ever to accept Christianity as the official religion of the state. While the level of religious freedom and tolerance within the Ottoman and Seljuk Empires had fluctuated over the years, the Young Turks wanted to establish Islamic dominance throughout the region more so than any of the leading groups before them. This militant Islamic group blamed the Christian “Infidels” for the struggles faced by the Muslims living within their borders. However, it is important to note that many Islamic religious leaders protested the deportation and execution of the Armenians, and later testified on behalf of the persecuted minority during war crime trials. Despite this, it would be difficult to deny that religious animosity, of which the region has had an extensive history, played a major role in the events which were to unfold between 1915 and 1917.
With the main causes for the genocide having been examined, it is time to investigate the persecution itself. In the year 1915, there were approximately 1.5 million Armenians living within the borders of the Ottoman Empires (The Armenian). By the end of the persecution in 1917, as many as 1.2 million of them were dead (The Armenian). It is widely accepted that the first several assaults upon the Armenians were carried out by civilians; the government authorities and troops also contributed to the destruction as the persecution blossomed. Armenians were killed in all sorts of horrific ways, but the vast majority died during the forced marches, during which the Ottoman military and civilians alike herded Armenians, sometimes entire towns at a time, and simply marched them into the desert without resources and left them there to perish. A survivor later remembered “We hear the children’s screams, the mothers’ sobs. They are hungry, they are thirsty, they are cold in the night air. They have no place to rest. They cannot freely move their bowels. They are suffering. They are visualizing the unbearable journey of the next day and its horrors, and they are going mad. The young girls and prettier women are being snatched away, and zaptiye (Turkish soldiers) satisfy their lusts on them. There are secret murders. And some, unable to bear these things, drop dead” (Harutian 87). Those who were lucky enough to survive had to simply continue walking until, and if, they reached the border and safety. Very few were this lucky. The situation only worsened with the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, in which the Russians gave many of their southern provinces to the Ottoman Empire in exchange for peace. This spelled doom for the thousands of Armenians who had fled the Ottoman Empire to the safety of Russia. The Ottoman Turks, with thousands of new Armenians within their borders, were reinvigorated in their efforts to eradicate the Armenians, especially because a large number of them had been attempting to set up an independent state in the formerly Russian land. Enraged, the Turks promptly smashed this fledgling group with more vigor and tenacity than had been seen at any other time during the genocide.
Denial
The effects of this horrific event can be seen throughout history, and are still felt today. One of the most glaring reminders of the violence shown towards the Armenians was the Holocaust in Germany during World War II. Hitler followed the Young Turks blueprint almost exactly, dehumanizing and scapegoating an economically successful racial and religious minority during a time of crisis. Germany, just like the Ottoman Turks, was reeling after having suffered a military defeat in World War I, and was attempting to regain lost prestige. Germany, too, was struggling economically, and had a new and unstable government after Kaiser Wilhelm had abdicated, similar to the situation with the Sultan in the Ottoman Empire. A wealthy ethnic and religious minority was humiliating to the ruling race in Germany, just as the Armenians were to the Turks before the genocide. To fully illustrate just how similar these two crimes against humanity were, in a 1939 statement, Adolf Hitler himself illustrates his use of the Turkish blueprint to justify his actions in Poland, saying “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Perhaps, if people had in fact remembered the Armenian Genocide, this second tragedy may have been avoided. Had the tragedy in the Ottoman Empire been fully understood throughout the global community, then perhaps the leaders of the world in the 1940s would have seen the warning signs, and prevented such a tragedy from happening again.
In fact, even today there are a very determined group of individuals who not only “do not speak of the Armenians”, but deny the fact that a genocide occurred. Many Turks still claim that there was no crime committed against the Armenians, suggesting that the Armenians “decided their own fate” by openly fighting alongside the Triple Entente during the First World War and against the Ottoman Empire during the Balkan War (Case). This view believes that the Turks were justified in their actions against the Armenians, and argue that very few were actually killed, rather, that they were simply deported from their homeland. Others concede that the Armenians did suffer great losses, but refuse to accept the fact that the atrocities were carried out by the Ottoman Empire and its military. Instead, they suggest that the Armenians were victims of pillaging Kurds who were in the area at the time (Case). That being said, the belief that the events of 1915 through 1917 were in fact genocidal in nature is held widely throughout the international community among scholars. It is incredibly difficult to deny that the events did take place; and, the Young Turks had the motive, intent, and ability to carry out such a heinous crime against humanity.
Still, this debate raises questions about the area of knowledge of history itself, and how people gain historical knowledge. The recounting of the Armenian Genocide suggests that there is no “absolute truth” within history, and that bias, both conscious and unconscious, clouds judgement and alters the recitations of events. This forces the learner to be incredibly wary of his or her sources, and to always consider whether or not the informer may be knowingly or unknowingly harboring ulterior motives and is allowing these to influence the presentation of material.
Additionally, the forcible removal of Armenians from Armenia has had an incredible impact upon the culture. For many years, the language was in danger of dying out, and the massacres of the genocide have left Armenia as one of the most sparsely populated nations to this day. Indeed, 102 years later, the scars left by the assaults can still be seen and felt. That being said, one could also argue that the horrors of 1915 have unified and united the Armenian diaspora, and led to a cultural, religious, and ethnic pride as strong as any in the world. The Armenian people were forged in the fire of genocide, but have passed that test and prevailed with flying colors. There are now more than twice as many ethnic Armenians worldwide as there were when the Young Turks attempted to annihilate them, which is a testament to the Armenian spirit and resilience (Hartunian XIX).
In conclusion, the main causes of the Armenian Genocide were the economic, political, religious, and social situations of the Ottoman Empire at the time, as well as the history of conflict in the region. The events which unfolded between 1915 and 1917 constitute one of the greatest assaults upon humanity in the history of the world, yet the Armenian Genocide remains under-researched and under-taught in many schools. It is important that this trend is broken. Humanity must study the past in order to avoid repeating the atrocities committed so many years ago. People must learn to be aware of the sins of the past in order to create a better tomorrow. That, after all, is the noblest reason to pursue the study of history.
Notes
“Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Nazi Germany (1933-45).” Adolf Hitler — Statement on theArmenian Genocide. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 March, 2017.
Akyol, Mustafa. “What Was behind the Ethnic Cleansing of Armenians?” Al-Monitor. N.p., 12 April 2015. Web. 11 March, 2017.
“The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): Overview.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, n.d. Web. 11 March, 2017.
“Armenian National Institute.” Armenian National Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 March, 2017.
Dadrian, Vahakn N. The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. New York: Berghahn, 2008. Print.
Case, Holly. “Two Rights and a Wrong.” Nation, vol. 296, no. 13, 4/1/2013, pp. 33-37.
Framework, Analysis, and Legal Definition Of Genocide. OFFICE OF THE UN SPECIAL ADVISER ON THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE (OSAPG) (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
Hartunian, Abraham H. Neither to Laugh nor to Weep: An Odyssey of Faith: A Memoir ofthe Armenian Genocide. Belmont, Mass.: Armenian Heritage, 1999. Print.
While most commentators have focused on the reasons and consequences of the U.S., British, and French missile strikes on targets in Syria, very few realize that Turkey is the biggest loser as the result of this attack.
Two weeks ago, when President Trump announced that the United States would “very soon,” withdraw its soldiers from Northern Syria, the Turkish government was elated. Turkey’s invasion of Afrin was intended to expand the occupation to Manbij and the entire Northern Syria to dislodge Kurdish fighters from that region. The only obstacle standing in the way of the Turkish troops was the U.S. military which has over 2,000 soldiers in the Manbij area. Repeated Turkish threats to attack the American troops did not scare the U.S. Commanders who stood steadfast in their defense of the local Kurdish population.
Within two weeks, President Trump reversed his position on the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. The latest reports from Washington and Paris state that the Pentagon and French President Emmanuel Macron “convinced” President Trump to keep the U.S. military in Syria until the Syrian crisis is resolved or other Western and Arab countries replaced the American forces. Turkey’s leaders were also disappointed that due to his dismissal former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson could not keep his promise to President Erdogan that the U.S. forces would withdraw shortly from Northern Syria.
With the American troops staying in Syria, the Turkish ability to attack Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria would be limited. Despite his crazy antics, President Erdogan is not going to target the U.S. military or as he described, “deliver the Americans an Ottoman slap!” Thus, the unsubstantiated accusations of a chemical attack by the Syrian government on civilians in Douma near Damascus was most probably orchestrated by those who wanted to prevent American forces from leaving Northern Syria, to the great chagrin of Turkey! Interestingly, in his remarks shortly before the missile strike, President Trump did not mention a single word as to what evidence he had about the responsibility of the Syrian regime for the chemical attack.
Incidentally, the missile strike on Syria generated conflicting reactions in Turkey. While President Erdogan was unhappy with the stay of the U.S. troops in Syria, he was delighted with the attacks by the United States, Great Britain and France, since Turkey wanted to undermine the Syrian regime and overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. The missile strike, however, did not have such an objective, as President Trump tweeted after the attack, “Mission Accomplished!” Everyone, except Erdogan, agrees that President Assad had the upper hand in the Syrian conflict and his overthrow would worsen the situation in Syria and the region!
The other negative consequence of the Turkish praise of the missile attack on Syria was the souring of relations between Turkey, and Russia and Iran, staunch supporters of President Assad and harsh critics of the strike. In addition, President Erdogan alienated his domestic political opposition and a large segment of the Turkish public upset by the Western powers’ attack on a fellow Muslim country.
Turkey was also unhappy that President Trump, in his remarks just before the missile strike, mentioned “Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, Qatar, and Egypt” as “our friends,” disregarding NATO ally Turkey due to its rapprochement with Russia and Iran.
Curiously, in his speech President Trump criticized Russia and Iran stating: “what kind of a nation wants to be associated with a mass murder of innocent men, women and children? The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators.” It is unfortunate that on the eve of April 24, the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, President Trump would attack other countries for keeping company with a murderous nation, ignoring the fact that the United States is an ally of Turkey, a country that denies the murder of 1.5 million Armenians, and defends its predecessor criminal Ottoman regime that committed the Armenian Genocide. This reminds us of what Jesus said: “You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
As I wrote a year ago when President Trump attacked Syria with Tomahawk missiles, he was simply hitting Syria to deviate the attention of the American public from his many infidelities, illegalities, and investigations of his covert relations with Russia.
Finally, President Trump, UK Prime Minster Theresa May, and French President Macron violated the constitutions of their respective countries, by going to war against another sovereign state without getting the consent of their legislative bodies.
WASHINGTON—Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Executive Director Aram Hamparian, a witness to the May 16, 2017, Recep Tayyip Erdogan-ordered attacks on peaceful protesters in Washington, D.C., sharply criticized a Washington D.C. Superior Court ruling today which gave light sentences to two of the Turkish American attackers. They had initially been charged with hate crimes and other violations and faced up to 15 years of incarceration.
A scene from the May 16, 2017 beating (Photo: VOA Turkish service)
Eyup Yildirim and Sinan Narin received sentences of one year and one day in prison, with credit for time served; three years of supervised release; and a fine of $100 each.
“This decision should worry every American,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. “Today’s light sentences—on top of the Administration dropping most charges and failing to seek any extraditions of Erdogan’s bodyguards – threatens to chill the free exercise of the First Amendment rights of Americans of Armenian or any other heritage to protest the actions of a foreign government.”
“As Americans, it’s our right to raise our voices on any issue – foreign or domestic – free from fear of violent attack, and confident that those who violate our rights will be brought to justice. Sadly, that has not been the case in response to Erdogan’s open export of his regime’s violence to the streets of Washington, DC. This backwards “Turkey First” approach defends foreign attackers instead of protecting American freedoms,” concluded Hamparian.
Hamparian and representatives of the ANCA and the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights (ALC) were on hand at District of Columbia Superior Court when Judge Marisa Demeo announced the ruling for Yildirim and Narin, two of the 19 perpetrators indicted for the brutal beatings, which included 15 members of Turkish President Erdogan’s security detail, and two Canadians, who have reportedly since repatriated to Turkey. All 19 defendants were indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit a crime of violence, with a bias crime enhancement—charges of hate crimes—which carry a maximum 15 years prison sentence. The court decision overlooked hate-crimes component of the charges, which have been reduced to one charge of assault.
Judge Demeo’s decision came despite powerful community impact and victim impact statements offered by the ALC’s Kate Nahapetian and several of the targets of the attacks including Ms. Lusik Usoyan, Founder and President of the Ezidi Relief Fund and Mr. Murat Yusa, a local businessman and protest organizer, and Abbas Azzizi. Yildirim was videotaped kicking Yusa in the head and face multiple times while he was on the ground in a prone position resulting in a concussion, a broken tooth, two loose teeth and head laceration that required five stitches. Usoyan was knocked unconscious by Narin and others during the attack, leading to a concussion, memory loss, and dizziness which required repeated visits to the hospital for treatment. Usoyan, Yusa and Azzizi were allowed to make oral statements to court in addition written statements.
“The case against Sinan Narin and Eyup Yildirim is not just about a violent assault, which on its own should merit severe punishment, but it is a case closely associated with a coordinated assault by foreign government security forces on the bodies of our citizens and on our foundational principles of free assembly and speech,” stated ALC Executive Director Kate Nahapetian. “The world is watching. But more importantly, the people of America are watching, the police who had to risk their lives protecting women and children from Narin and Yildirim and unhinged armed foreign security personnel are watching, the protesters who were severely bloodied, beaten and suffered lasting physical injuries and emotional trauma are watching, and Armenian Americans who will be protesting Turkey’s state-sponsored denial of the Armenian Genocide in just a few weeks on April 24, are watching to see, if they will be safe in DC.”
Yildirim and Narin were arrested on June 14, 2017 and have been in jail since. They have been the darlings of the Erdogan Administration, with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu proudly tweeting after a September, 2017 visit, “We visit and send the love and regards of our nation to our brothers Sinan Narin and Eyup Yildirim, who are under arrest in Washington.” On March 22nd, they were visited by several members of the Turkish Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, including Chairman Volkan Bozkir, who tweeted photos with the smiling prisoners.
The court decision follows news, first reported by the Wall Street Journal in March, that charges against 11 of the 15 members of Erdogan’s security detail had been dropped – four on November 7, 2017, the day Turkish Prime Minister Yildirim flew to Washington for talks; seven on February 14th, the day before Secretary of State Rex Tillerson travelled to Ankara for meetings with President Erdogan. The State Department claims that the timing of the dropped charges was simply a coincidence. Senate and House Members immediately expressed concerns, with senior Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) noted “I am deeply alarmed that the Trump Administration prefers to appease Erdogan over upholding the rights of Americans to protest peacefully without fear of violence from foreign security forces. Yet again, this Administration is trampling on the rule of law.” House Foreign Affairs Committee member Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif), noted: “If this is as it appears, the decision sends exactly the wrong signal to Erdogan, who is aligning his authoritarian government with radical Islamists and who carries out the same sort of brutal attacks on his own citizens as he allowed, within his sight, to be committed on American soil. This outrage must not go unpunished.” New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell has called for a Department of Justice investigation into the matter.
ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian was videotaping live at the scene of the May 16, 2017 attack, which took place in front of the Turkish Ambassador’s residence where President Erdogan was scheduled to have a closed-door meeting with think tank leaders. Hamparian’s video showed pro-Erdogan forces crossing a police line and beating peaceful protesters—elderly men and several women— who were on the ground bleeding during most of the attack.
Hamparian testified before a May 25th Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing on this matter. Joining him at the hearing were Usoyan, Yusa, and Ms. Ruth Wedgwood, Edward B. Burling Professor of International Law and Diplomacy, at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Usoyan and Yusa were victims of the brutal assault on May 16 by President Erdogan’s bodyguards.
On June 6, 2017, with a vote of 397 to 0, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously condemned Turkey in response to the attacks, taking a powerful stand against Ankara’s attempts to export its violence and intolerance to America’s shores. H.Res.354, spearheaded by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), has received the public backing of House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). On July 14, 2017, the U.S. House also unanimously adopted an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill, championed by Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman David Trott (R-Mich.), raising objections to a proposed U.S. sale of handguns for use by the very Erdogan security detail involved in the May 16th attack. Efforts to block the gun sale continued in the U.S. Senate, with the successful Appropriations Committee adoption of an amendment by Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Vice-Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in September. The Trump Administration officially withdrew its controversial proposal to allow the sale of U.S. semi-automatic handguns to Turkey shortly thereafter.
On July 19, 2017, senior members of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Ted Poe (R-Tex.), Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Co-Chairman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), and Representatives Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and John Sarbanes (D-Md.) condemned Turkish President Erdogan’s violent actions—both in Turkey and the U.S.—during “A Stand for Free Speech” held at the site of the May 16th attacks. The press conference and rally was organized by the ANCA, in coordination with the Sheridan Circle May 16 Initiative (including many victims of the beatings), and a host of Kurdish, Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, and Christian groups including the American Kurdish Association (AKA), In Defense of Christians, American Hellenic Council, Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights, A Demand for Action, Hellenic American Leadership Council, AHEPA, and the Armenian Youth Federation.
The May 16 protest in front of the Turkish Ambassador’s residence was a continuation of a demonstration held earlier in the day in front of the White House, co-hosted by the ANCA. As President Trump met with President Erdogan. human rights and religious rights groups were joined by representatives of the Kurdish, Yezidi and Armenian communities to call attention to the Erdogan regime’s escalating repression against free press, the Kurdish and other ethnic communities, as well as Turkey’s ongoing obstruction of justice for the Armenian Genocide.
The Flight AttendantBy Chris Bohjalian Doubleday, New York (March 13, 2018), 368 pp. ISBN: 978-0385542418; Hardcover, $26.95
Bohjalian’s latest novel, released on March 13, 2018, is New York Times bestseller, a Wall Street Journal bestseller, a US Today bestseller, and a National Indiebound bestseller (Photo: The Armenian Weekly. Cover: Doubleday)
Special to the Armenian Weekly
About 20 pages into The Flight Attendant—by the time protagonist Cassie Snowden extricates herself from a hotel room that can only be described as a way incriminating crime scene—you know that you are in for another well-paced Chris Bohjalian thriller. Snowden is a flight attendant and a boozer, the daughter of an alcoholic father, whose drinking has not quite caught up with her—yet. Single, in her 40s, and still prone to incidents of black out sex, she’s one hot mess.
So what exactly do you do when you wake up in a hotel room in Dubai next to a dead man, in a land notorious for its rather harsh penal codes? The answer takes the reader on a whirlwind adventure across three continents of love, murder and mafia intrigue galore. Bohjalian possesses a knack for dialogue and his characters interact with preternatural ease: even if some of them can feel a bit caricatured at times, they are alive and enticing.
Chris Bohjalian in Yerevan (Photo: Aaron Spagnolo)
The author’s great strength lies in his ability to spin a lively tale with all sorts of plot twists and unexpected outcomes. The Flight Attendant is more measured than some of his other works. Here, his other great quality as a writer comes out: i.e. the ability to make the reader care for his protagonist. Given that Snowden is a liar and a thief prone to self-pity, this isn’t as easy as it may sound. As in previous books, Bohjalian has done his research well, and you get a strong sense of what a flight attendant’s life may be like: glamorous but harried and full of one-night stands, a treadmill that only the most level-headed or emotionally gifted survive intact.
As this fast–moving story unfolds, the reader’s mind races. Will Cassie be tried for murder? Will the real murderer track her down and execute her as well? Will she escape the murderer’s clutches only to be ensnared in some other diabolical scheme? Along the way, you also hope (perhaps against all hope) that she will learn to deal with her fear of commitment and find true love, and in the process, also kick her bottle habit. Cassie’s only allies are a sexy Roman bartender named Enrico and one crafty lawyer back home, Ani Mouradian, who uses her wits and legal prowess to help a woman whom she comes to care for deeply. Ani is a great character, and one wishes that both she and Cassie’s two-night stand Buckley had been given more character development or pages.
The Flight Attendant is the best type of book to pick up when one doesn’t want to be hit over the head by pretentious prose or over-analytic musings: smart, entertaining, and breezily written, with a protagonist that you begin to identify with in spite of yourself. All this takes place against a background of Russian intrigue and a world where one false move may well be your last.
St. Gregory of Narek, a "central figure" of Armenia and mystic of mercy, to take a place in the Gardens.
Pope Francis will inaugurate a statue of the Armenian saint Gregory of Narek, Doctor of the Church, in the Vatican Gardens on April 5. Narek is considered “a central, almost heroic figure” in Armenian history, for having “shaped Eastern Christian thought,” reads a statement from the Armenian Embassy to the Holy See released on April 3.
This saint of the Armenian Apostolic Church spent much of his life at the monastery of Narek, south of Lake Van. A theologian and great mystic author, he deeply explored the themes of divine mercy, spiritual combat, and the love of the mystical life.
He died around 1005, leaving abundant written works, including a commentary on the Song of Songs and many poems, hymns, and odes. His sacred Elegies, where his mystical experience is expressed, are still today one of the main prayer books of the Armenian Church.
Gregory of Narek also wrote odes celebrating the Virgin Mary, songs, and panegyrics. He had a great devotion to Mary, which served as a starting point for him to gain a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Incarnation.
His masterpiece nevertheless remains the Book of Lamentations, which he completed at the end of his life. A monument to the classical Armenian language, he described it as a series of “conversations with God from the depths of the heart,” addressed to all, both the powerful and the poor.
“I laid its foundations,” writes Gregory of Narek, “built it, furnished it, polished it, decorated it, concluded it, and completed it, as a beautifully homogeneous work; I gathered all my writings, me, Gregory, cloistered monk, derisory poet.” He did this, he said, in order “to soothe the evils of both the soul and the body.”
In writing this book, Gregory of Narek was convinced that a life “free of corruption” is possible, even here below. A true appeal to divine mercy, this book, says the Armenian Embassy, is a work of “very elevated poetry that has the power of a lament but is capable of eliciting divine forgiveness.”
Gregory of Narek was recognized as the 36th doctor of the Church by Pope Francis on April 12, 2015. He became the second doctor to come from an Eastern Church, after Ephrem the Syrian, declared in 1920 by Benedict XV. At the ceremony raising Gregory to the status of Doctor of the Church, Pope Francis referred to “the first genocide of the 20th century”: that of the Armenians a hundred years ago.
The Supreme Pontiff visited Armenia one year and three months later. On that occasion, the president of the country, Serzh Sargsyan, gave the pope a statuette of St. Gregory of Narek to thank him for his pilgrimage to the first Christian nation.
The pope was so pleased by the statue that the Armenian head of state commissioned a bronze replica two meters tall to be made by an Armenian sculptor living in France, David Erevantzi. This is the statue that will be inaugurated in the Vatican Gardens this April 5, in the presence of the president and of Patriarch Karekine II Nersissian, Catholicos of all Armenians.
Join Rafi Topalian as he discusses the past, present and future Armenian news, stories and related issues that effect not only the Armenian Community in the Capital District but non-Armenian readers alike.
