Um, I think you’re going to have to back up this claim, perhaps with a citation.
If my link refers to this offer, then your characterization might charitably be described as incomplete: see my last post. If you are thinking of another offer, then by all means feel free to substantiate your contention.
Just to be clear, a panel of experts has already looked into the matter. See my reference to the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC).
Measure_for_measure:
I will try, one more time, to explain this to you. Please please please keep an open mind.
Remember, I am interested in the Truth, whereever it leads us.
Ok, here we go:
The issue that is dividing us is as I have posted and will copy again:
"Erdogan wrote to Kocharian in April suggesting that the two countries, which have no diplomatic relations, set up a commission of historians that would look into the 1915 events and determine whether they were indeed a genocide. The unusual move came ahead of the April 24 worldwide ceremonies commemorating the 90th anniversary of the start of mass killings and deportations. It was welcomed by the United States and some European leaders.
But Kocharian effectively rejected the idea, contending that the Armenian genocide was already an established fact. At the same time, he called for the creation of an Armenian-Turkish inter-governmental commission that would discuss all issues of mutual concern, including the genocide controversy."
Now, let us boil this all down. It comes to an Offer, a Refusal, and a Counter-Offer.
Please respond with a “yes” if you agree with the statement I have just made, with a “no” if you do not.
That is all you need to do. Please no ellaboration, no quotes, nothing else is need. Just a “yes” or a “no”. I will take it from there.
Regards,
Michael
mgauss,
The quote from the article supplied by Measure says that Turkey wants to “set up a commission of historians”. You continue to requote this phrase as support for the following:
None of these statements are supported by the source quote. Could you please provide additional support for these contentions of yours?
Zakalwe,
Points well taken. I will try and find reference to #2 and #3. I do not believe #1 is a misreprensation but have no problem switching to “commission of historians”. The expression “conclave” was used back in post #88, where the germ of the misunderstanding Measure_for_measure and I have started.
Hopefully post #102 will be the start of a resolution to all this.
Regards,
Michael
Thanks for the response. While we’re on this, hot off the presses:
Let me stomp on one fire at a time:
Zakalwe:
As regards to points #2 and #3, I cannot find my original source.
I was unable to find Erdogan’s letter to Kocharian (that would have settled this part of the issue once and for all) but I did find the reply, at
http://www.accc.org.uk/News/Teimourian/atomic_Plant/Erdoghan/Kocharians_letter_to_Mr_Erdogh/kocharians_letter_to_mr_erdogh.html
There are, however, a couple of news articles, that imply the opening of archives as a Turkish position.
This I think is a Armenian source quoting a Turkish paper.
http://www.mediadialogue.org/eng/?page=issue&id=862
This contains comments of Baykal, a leader of the Turkish opposition.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=41187
These ain’t exactly steller sources to be sure, but from my vantage point if there was an offer to “set up a commission of historians”, that would have to imply opening of archives, I am suprised this has been questioned.
Regards,
Michael
Hmmm…
Zakalwe,
Nice try, but tis not what I meant. I simply cannot address two issues with you and one with measure_for_measure at the same time. I am too old and have a life outside of this.
Have I answered your post #103 to your satisfaction? If so I will move on to your post #105.
I do have an opinion on all this, hopefully I will eventually get to it.
And of course,
I am interested in the Truth, whereever it leads us.
Regards,
Michael
----- No elaboration, just yes or no:
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. This isn’t a Hollywood cross-examination; this is a discussion at an internet board dedicated to fighting ignorance.
If you make an assertion, you have to back it up.
Again, though, I am no expert in these matters. Zakalwe’s link suggests that the Turkish government is hardly intent on free inquiry, however:
The position of the opposition Republican People’s Party (founded by Attaturk) is not entirely clear to me. On the one hand, Baykal seems to like the idea of a common Turkish/Armenian commission examining the archives of both countries. On the other, Sukru Elekdag, a former Turkish ambassador to the United States accused the academic participants of the above conference of high treason.
Perhaps the Turkish government only wants the genocide issue discussed in an environment where they can apply diplomatic pressure on the participants. That said, Turks can be proud of the persistence of civil society in their country: the postponement of the conference reportedly caused an outcry in the country.
measure_for_measure:
The problem with discussion in a forum like this is in staying on topic. In your situation I am trying to explain a point, please let me. As regards to Zakalwe, he/she has raised a very good issue that I will address in good time, but with Zakalwe it is first things first, that is why I want to get his/her prior questions to me cleared up first. You do not need to pile onto that, rather let’s discuss yours. There is a very interesting thread I want to explore with it, if you will let me.
Now…
As to where we are stuck I see it in three actionable parts: an offer, a refusal and a counter-offer. Call it diplomatic if you wish, I prefer to strip out the adjectives. If you agree we can continue. If not let’s call it a day.
The good news for you is that I will be gone from here in less than a month as my free period will expire. So if you want to have your mind stretched hop to it, times slippin’ by.
Regards,
Michael
Yes, that’s perfectly satisfactory.
As for the number of fires you have to deal with, I think you can now consider my question and Measure’s as one issue, to wit:
Can the Turkish President’s offer to form a historical commission be considered to be a good faith offer?
Given that:
It seems unlikely that this is anything other than an attempt to create the appearance of investigation to smooth the way for EU consideration.
Measure, not trying to speak for you, but I think we’re asking the same question here.
Zakalwe,
Thank you. But…
I am in a slugfest with Social Security regarding the new personal account system right now, will try and get back to you tonite.
I know this is way way off topic (something I often accuse others of), but if someone started a thread on Social Security Personal Accounts I would post my email converstion with them, I think you might find it very interesting. I like the basic idea but am very much against the proposal as it now stands.
Regards,
Michael
Zakalwe,
Your point that there had already been an open investigation gives one pause. Hit me with a link on that please.
Regards,
Michael
Ummm… Measure already did. TARC. I’m also curious as to what you mean by “open the archives”. As near as I can tell, the only archives are at the Armenian Genocide Institute-Museum which doesn’t exactly appear to be “closed”. Let’s face it, the open or closed nature of the Aremenian archives isn’t the issue here. Armenia refused to work with Turkey based on a number of complex issues, but a concern about some Turkish historians entering their archives doesn’t appear to be one of them.
Said consolidation along the lines recommended by Zakalwe is acceptable to me. This really isn’t rocket science.
Those wishing to delve into the substance of the issue are advised to download the International Center for Transitional Justice issues report on “The applicability of the United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to events which occurred during the early twentieth century”, available at the TARC website.
A guide to the whole controversy is at http://www.answers.com/armenian-genocide . Note disclaimer on top. My disclaimer: I have only given this material the briefest skim.
I read at the answers.com site that Armenia has maintained that its archives have always been open.
I trust there are other obstacles; I see no evidence that Armenian policy is one of them.
measure_for_measure:
I have two conversations going. One with you and one with Zakalwe. And Zakalwe has spilt into two issues. Please do me a big favor and stay on topic with yours.
Again, as to where we are stuck I see it in three actionable parts: an offer, a refusal and a counter-offer. Call it diplomatic if you wish, I prefer to strip out the adjectives. If you agree we can continue. If not let’s call it a day.
Regards,
Michael
Zakalwe:
I am going to combine your posts #105 and #111 as it appears that the latter is a coment on the former. What follows will be my thinking, no quotes, just my opinions. I am also tired as it is very late, so if you cannot follow this it is not my fault, blame the computer.
First #105:
POSTPONEMENT OF HISTORY CONFERENCE SPARKS CONTROVERSY IN TURKEY
A joint statement issued by conference organizers and participants cited an aggressive campaign of “pressure, threats and slander” as the reason for the postponement.
<snip>
Speaking in parliament on May 24, Justice Minister Cemil Cicek angrily asserted that holding the conference would be tantamount to stabbing Turkey in the back. <snip> Cicek went on to say that … the organization of a forum at which people supporting the Armenian view could air their opinions constituted a violation of national interests.
<snip>
Sukru Elekdag, a former Turkish ambassador to the United States, … accused the potential academic participants of high treason.
The decision to postpone the conference caused an outcry in Turkey and dismayed foreign diplomats, who said the move to suppress dissenting views on sensitive historical issues raised questions about Turkey’s commitment to academic freedom.
The controversy also proved embarrassing for Erdogan’s government. As part of an effort to promote a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, Erdogan had proposed just two months ago the formation of a joint Turkish-Armenian commission of historians to examine the complex relationship between the two peoples.
Then #111:
Can the Turkish President’s offer to form a historical commission be considered to be a good faith offer?
Given that:
I feel the offer was a good faith offer. To me Erdogan is a most unusual leader. A former islamist, he has shown none of what the US feared might happen if he came to power. Instead he seems to have followed a very pragmatic course of action. Example: he lobbied for allowing the US to move troops through the country for the Iraq war but was rebuffed by parliment. Example: headscarves are not allowed in schools (think France and their problems with this). Now, in my opinion he does see the Armenian genocide issue as something that has to be dealt with, it is getting out of hand. Example: (and I think I can find the link to this if anyone querries) there are laws in France that make it illegal for someone to deny the Armenian genocide - I find this hard to believe, there is a lot of crap on the internet.
The article on the postponement of the conference is lengthy, I suggest if you read the whole thing you may see the germ of reasons why some opposed it. Not that I agree, and certainly Erdogan was embarassed by the postponement. To say it made the Turkish newspapers is an understatement. If you get into the Turkish Daily News around May 26 you will see what I mean.
And that is a very good sign. An independent news media is (to me at least) critical to determining the level of democracy a country has. There are scant counties in that area whose media has similiar freedoms.
Please note the conference was reported as being postponed, not cancelled. Let us all hope it will eventually happen.
Are there some in the government that do not want such a conference? Yep, most certainly yep. And as a bit of a comparison, I suspect that there also were those in the Johnson administration that did not want large college conferences on the legality of the Vietnam war.
Diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia do not exist at present. Well, if I were Erdogan and I made an offer in good faith and it was rebuffed as directly as it apparently was, then I probably would not be predisposed to establish diplomatic relations either. I have not delved into the relations between Armenia and Turkey. Remember, one (Turkey) is a somewhat democracy, (the banking system is still state-controled), and the other I do not know what to call it.
“The archives in question have already been opened to a neutral body and Turkey didn’t like the result.” Sorry, I could not find the linkage to that. I hope it happenned recently, I am not a historian and do not want to get into the past, leave that for others.
I hope this answered your post. If it gets bashed too much I will claim that either it is too late at night or that someone else did this typing using my handle.
Regards,
Michael
I think that would be a good topic to open, why don’t you start? Depending on where you want to take it, it should probably be posted in the forum called “Great Debates.”
We discuss lots here, so there may be reasons for you to stick around after your free month is up. If you like the discussions here, the cost is under $1.50 a month.
Zakalwe:
I do some of my worst thinking at midnight. Please consider my last post “inoperative” (hey, if John Ziegler can do it for Richard Nixon then I can do it here). While I do think what I said is accurate, it can only be best described as rambling pablum that does little to advance the issue. Rather, let’s try this:
The issue I have raised is back in post #88. Your reply is post #111. To edit and post parts of them here comes to this:
First #88 slightly changed as requested:
"I think the turkish position is this:
Was there killing? Yes
Was there a lot of killing? Yes, minimum estimate seems to be 600,000.
Was it centrally ordered? No.
Was it an ugly time in the area? Yes, very much so.
Were others killed besides Armenians? Yes, up to 2.5 million Moslems.
The thing I find interesting is that Turkey has offerred to have a conclave of international experts (please change to read “commission of historians”, gosh what a terrible error) review the entire situation. They have offerred to open their archives for this purpose and have asked Armenia to open theirs also. The offer appears to have been refused and perhaps someone here can explain."
Next, a citation to back this up, link provided measure_for_measure:
"Erdogan wrote to Kocharian in April suggesting that the two countries, which have no diplomatic relations, set up a commission of historians that would look into the 1915 events and determine whether they were indeed a genocide. The unusual move came ahead of the April 24 worldwide ceremonies commemorating the 90th anniversary of the start of mass killings and deportations. It was welcomed by the United States and some European leaders.
But Kocharian effectively rejected the idea, contending that the Armenian genocide was already an established fact. "
Finally, #111:
Can the Turkish President’s offer to form a historical commission be considered to be a good faith offer?
Given that:
My initial thinking was to follow the path of your first point, but I’m not gonna go there, there is an easier answer to all this. Try this:
Imagine for a moment you are Kocharian. You have had an offer to examine the issue. You know that point #1 is true. You suspect that point #2 is true also. You therefore suspect that the whole issue is a ruse and not a good faith offer.
What do you have to lose in accepting the offer? You will gain favor in the western countries as being reasonable, you are gonna win for sure if it happens, and if it does not happen you will really really embarass Edrogan. Heck, if that happens Turkey will be so humiliated internationally that they may ask for the opening of diplomatic relations with Armenia!
In short, everything to gain, absolutely nothing to lose.
So, why did he not accept?
Regards,
Michael
Well, he did have something to lose. The opening of the partial dialogue without any other concessions would: