79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–933

AFFIRMATION OF THE UNITED STATES RECORD ON THE

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

OCTOBER 4, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. GILMAN, from the Committee on International Relations,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H. Res. 596]

The Committee on International Relations, to whom was referred

the resolution (H. Res. 596) calling upon the President to ensure

that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human

rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United

States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with

an amendment and recommend that the resolution be agreed to.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Affirmation of the United States Record on

the Armenian Genocide Resolution’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The House of Representatives finds the following:

(1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman

Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000

survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.

(2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly

issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing ‘‘a crime against humanity’’.

(3) This joint statement stated ‘‘[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey

against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to

the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes

all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who

are implicated in such massacres’’.

2

(4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the ‘‘organization and execution’’ of the Armenian Genocide and in the

‘‘massacre and destruction of the Armenians’’.

(5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried

and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the

Armenian people.

(6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver,

Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not

enforced.

(7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France,

Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other

countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same

events, and the same consequences.

(8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in

its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State,

files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and

interested institutions.

(9) The national archives of Turkey should also include all of the records pertaining to the indictment, trial, and conviction of the Ottoman authorities responsible for the Armenian Genocide.

(10) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, United States Ambassador to the

Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests by officials of

many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide.

(11) Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States Department of State the policy of the Government of the Ottoman Empire as ‘‘a

campaign of race extermination’’, and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by

United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the ‘‘Department approves

your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution’’.

(12) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved that ‘‘the

President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on

which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians’’, who at the

time were enduring ‘‘starvation, disease, and untold suffering’’.

(13) President Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which

contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to 1930 to aid the Armenian Genocide

survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.

(14) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, ‘‘the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate

Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have

suffered’’.

(15) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the

American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that

stated ‘‘[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting

memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages’’.

(16) Setting the stage for the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military

commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections

by saying ‘‘[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’’.

(17) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term ‘‘genocide’’ in 1944, and who was

the earliest proponent of the Genocide Convention, invoked the Armenian case

as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

(18) Raphael Lemkin described the crime as ‘‘the systematic destruction of

whole national, racial or religious groups. The sort of thing Hitler did to the

Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians’’.

(19) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at

Lemkin’s urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General Assembly

Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Genocide Convention itself recognized

the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to

prevent by codifying existing standards.

(20) In 1948 the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide ‘‘precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term

3

‘crimes against humanity’ is intended to cover’’ as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

(21) The Commission stated that ‘‘[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace

Treaty of Se ́vres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied

note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory

against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This

article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg

and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of ‘crimes

against humanity’ as understood by these enactments’’.

(22) The United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted in 1985 a report entitled ‘‘Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the

Crime of Genocide’’, which stated ‘‘[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not

been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples

which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians

in 1915–1916’’.

(23) This report also explained that ‘‘[a]t least 1 million, and possibly well

over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed

or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany’’.

(24) The tragedy of the Armenian Genocide has been acknowledged by countries and international bodies such as Argentina, Belgium, Canada, the Council

of Europe, Cyprus, the European Parliament, France, Great Britain, Greece,

Lebanon, Russia, the United Nations, the United States, and Uruguay.

(25) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, an independent Federal

agency, unanimously resolved on April 30, 1981, that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would include the Armenian Genocide in the Museum

and has since done so.

(26) President Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981,

stated in part ‘‘like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide

of the Cambodians, which followed it—and like too many other persecutions of

too many other people—the lessons of the holocaust must never be forgotten’’.

(27) President Bush, in 1988, speaking of the Armenian Genocide, stated ‘‘we

must consciously and conscientiously recognize the genocides of the past—the

enormous tragedies that have darkened this century and that haunt us still. We

must not only commemorate the courage of the victims and of their survivors,

but we must also remind ourselves that civilization cannot be taken for granted.

. . . We must all be vigilant against this most heinous crime against humanity’’.

(28) President Bush, in 1988, stated further ‘‘[t]he United States must acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian people in the last years of

the Ottoman Empire, based on the testimony of survivors, scholars, and indeed

our own representatives at the time, if we are to insure that such horrors are

not repeated’’.

(29) President Clinton, on August 13, 1992, stated ‘‘[t]he Genocide of 1915,

years of communist dictatorship, and the devastating earthquake of 1988 have

caused great suffering in Armenia during this century’’.

(30) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the United

States Department of State asserting that the facts of the Armenian Genocide

may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents pertaining to the policy record of

the United States, noted that the assertion on ambiguity in the United States

record about the Armenian Genocide ‘‘contradicted longstanding United States

policy and was eventually retracted’’.

(31) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian

Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish

those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides

have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a proper judicial and firm

response, holding the guilty accountable and requiring the prompt enforcement

of verdicts would have spared humanity needless suffering.

(32) In a commendable letter on April 9, 1999, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat,

then Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs,

pledged that the administration would raise with the Republic of Turkey the

issue of the recovery of Armenian assets from the genocide period held by the

Imperial Ottoman Bank.

(33) It is important that the President ensure that the foreign policy of the

United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning

issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in

the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:17 Oct 05, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR933.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR933
4

sequences of the failure to enforce the judgments of the Turkish courts against

the responsible officials.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

The House of Representatives—

(1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United

States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United

States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the

failure to enforce the judgments of the Turkish courts against the responsible

officials;

(2) calls upon the President in the President’s annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24 to characterize the

systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and

to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide; and

(3) calls upon the President in the President’s annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide to state that the modern day Republic of Turkey

did not conduct the Armenian Genocide, which was perpetrated by the Ottoman

Empire.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

H. Res. 596, the ‘‘Affirmation of the United States Record on the

Armenian Genocide Resolution,’’ was introduced on September 27,

2000 by Mr. Radanovich (for himself and Mr. Bonior). The resolution calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of

the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing,

and genocide documented in the United States record relating to

the Armenian Genocide. It relates facts and statements that would

serve to support the conclusion that the deaths of hundreds of

thousands of ethnic Armenians over a period of several years starting in 1915 in regions controlled by the former Ottoman Empire

were the result of a purposeful campaign of genocide against the

Armenian nation. It declares that the United States House of Representatives calls on the President to ensure that the foreign policy

of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing,

and genocide documented in the United States record relating to

the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce the judgements of the Turkish courts against the responsible

officials; calls on the President to characterize the systematic and

deliberate annihilation of one and one-half million Armenians as

genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide in an annual message

commemorating the Armenian Genocide; and calls on the President, in his annual message concerning the Armenian Genocide, to

state that the modern-day Republic of Turkey did not conduct the

Armenian Genocide, which was perpetrated by the former Ottoman

Empire.

THE FORMER OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT AND THE GROWING ARMENIAN

NATIONALIST MOVEMENT

As the 19th Century drew to a close, ethnic Armenian citizens

of the Ottoman and Russian Empires became increasingly interested in creating a new, independent, Armenian state, at a time

when other ethnic groups across Eurasia sought to create or resurrect their own nation-states. The hoped-for Armenian state would,

by necessity, consist of territory then held by the Russian Empire

5

in the Caucasus region and of territory then held by the Ottoman

Empire in the eastern portion of Anatolia. The ruling authorities

of the Ottoman Empire and of the ‘‘Young Turk’’ government that

came to power both viewed such Armenian nationalism with concern, in light of the contraction of the Empire’s borders as territories that had long been ruled by the Empire successfully rebelled

against it, particularly in the Balkans region.

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT MEASURES AIMED AT ETHNIC ARMENIANS

The advent of the First World War in late 1914 proved the spark

that touched off a cycle of violence between the Ottoman authorities and the ethnic Armenian minority. The ‘‘Young Turk’’ Ottoman

government entered World War I on the side of the former Prussian and Austro-Hungarian Empires against Britain, France and

the former Russian Empire. Emergency requisitions (confiscations)

of civilian possessions to support the war effort led to clashes between Armenian citizens and the Ottoman police and military

forces. The Ottoman authorities also ordered the deportation of ethnic Armenians from the eastern and southeastern provinces (the

eastern Anatolia region) early in the war, out of concern that Armenians might engage in separatism and collaboration with Russian forces in support of an Armenian nation-state. As additional

measures, ethnic Armenian soldiers were demobilized, arrested, or

sent on work details, and, in April 1915, the Ottoman Interior Ministry authorized the arrest of any Armenian community and political leaders suspected of nationalist sentiments. In late May of

1915, a Temporary Law on Deportations authorized the Ottoman

army to deport all populations (without specifying ethnic Armenians or any other group) that were suspected of espionage or treason or if such deportation was a military necessity. Laws enacted

in June and September of 1915 expropriated (confiscated) the goods

and assets left behind by such deported populations (again, not

specifically naming ethnic Armenians or any other group).

THE DEATHS OF ETHNIC ARMENIANS

The deportations of ethnic Armenians from the eastern and

southeastern Ottoman provinces (the eastern Anatolia region) that

began in 1914 soon led to massacres of ethnic Armenians and the

deaths of Armenians from starvation and other privations as they

were sent on forced marches. The fate of many of those ethnic Armenian soldiers demobilized, arrested, or sent on work details has

never been discovered and the arrests of Armenian community and

political leaders in mid-1915 were followed by the execution of most

of those arrested, even though no official charges had been brought

against them. The 1915 Temporary Law on Deportations led to the

deportation of most Armenian citizens from what is today modernday Turkey. Many of those Armenians deported never, in fact,

reached the region of the lower Euphrates River to the south of

Turkey (the area of present day Iraq and Kuwait), which was the

official destination of their resettlement. The United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, Mr. Henry Morgenthau,

later wrote that: ‘‘When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for

these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to

a whole race.’’ While there is no definitive estimate of those ethnic

Armenian citizens of the Ottoman Empire who died as a result of

6

the forced marches, executions, and battles, Armenians around the

world believe that the total number of such victims ranges from

800,000 to 1.5 million.

H. RES. 596 AND U.S.-TURKISH RELATIONS

The Committee considered public testimony and private correspondence offered by representatives of the United States Department of State, Members of Congress, and former United States

foreign policymakers, who have argued that it is important to

United States national interests that the United States respect the

Turkish government’s assertions that, although many ethnic Armenians died during World War I, no genocide took place. Such witnesses, Members of Congress and retired policymakers point to various aspects of U.S.-Turkish relations in making that argument, including the following. Turkey is a member of the U.S.-led NATO

alliance. Turkey borders on several Middle Eastern states of importance to the United States in its efforts to support the state of

Israel and bring peace to the Middle East (Iraq, Iran and Syria).

Turkey enforces United Nations sanctions on the Iraqi regime of

Saddam Hussein and allows U.S. and NATO aircraft to patrol

Northern Iraq from its bases. Turkey also plays a key role in international and NATO-led efforts to address instability in the nearby

regions of the Balkans and the Caucasus, and has deployed peacekeeping forces in the Balkans. Turkey’s trade with the United

States has grown considerably, and it is recognized by the U.S. as

an emerging, major market for U.S. exports. The United States and

Turkey have worked closely over the past few years to arrange construction of oil and gas pipelines out of the Caucasus and Central

Asia to ports on Turkey’s coast, thereby expanding access to the

two regions’ vast energy reserves while avoiding Russian or Iranian

control, and possible manipulation, of such pipelines. Turkey has

also signed and implemented a military cooperation agreement

with Israel, unprecedented for a Muslim state.

U.S. policymakers have also pointed out the increasing instability of the Turkish government in recent years, caused, in part,

by the growing strength of Islamic fundamentalist and Turkish nationalist political movements in Turkey. Such policymakers fear

that official U.S. recognition or determination of the events in the

former Ottoman Empire in and after 1915 to have been a genocide

could undermine pro-American elements in Turkey and provide

Turkish nationalist and fundamentalist Islamic movements greater

political influence within Turkey, to the ultimate detriment of both

the U.S. and Armenia.

In the final instance, the majority of the Committee’s Members

came to a decision to support passage of the resolution with certain

amendments intended to make it clear that the present-day Republic of Turkey did not carry out the genocidal actions conducted by

its predecessor, the former Ottoman Empire.

History of recent congressional consideration of resolutions related

to the ‘‘Armenian Genocide’’

[94th Congress (1975–76)—The House passed H.J. Res. 148, commemorating the ‘‘Armenian Genocide,’’ on April 8, 1975.]

98th Congress (1983–84)—The House passed H.J. Res. 247, commemorating the ‘‘Armenian Genocide,’’ on September 10, 1984.

7

99th Congress (1985–86)—On December 12, 1985, the House

adopted a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 328 to direct the President to proclaim April 24, 1986 as a national day of remembrance

of ‘‘man’s inhumanity to man,’’ especially the genocide said to have

been committed against Armenians between 1915 and 1923. The

House rejected an amendment to specify that the genocide said to

have been committed against Armenians occurred before the establishment of the present Republic of Turkey. The House did not act

further on the resolution, however, leaving it as ‘‘unfinished business.’’

100th Congress (1987–88)—On August 7, 1987, the House failed

to adopt a rule to consider H.J. Res. 132, a resolution to designate

April 24, 1987 as ‘‘National Day of Remembrance of the Armenian

Genocide of 1915–23.’’

101st Congress (1989–90)—No action was taken by the House on

H.J. Res. 417, a resolution introduced to designate April 24, 1990

as the ‘‘National Day of Remembrance of the 75th Anniversary of

the Armenian Genocide.’’ [A February 1990 effort to pass through

the Senate S.J. Res. 212, a resolution entitled the ‘‘National Day

of Remembrance of the 75th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide

of 1915–23,’’ failed in the face of a filibuster.]

102nd Congress (1991–92)—No resolution introduced on the

issue of the ‘‘Armenian Genocide.’’

103rd Congress (1993–94)—No resolution introduced on the issue

of the ‘‘Armenian Genocide.’’

104th Congress (1995–96)—No action taken on H. Con. Res. 47,

a resolution to recognize the ‘‘Armenian Genocide.’’ On June 5,

1996, the House adopted an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1997

Foreign Operations Appropriation Act to reduce aid to Turkey by

$3 million (an estimate of its payment of lobbying fees in the U.S.)

until the Turkish government acknowledged the Armenian genocide and took steps to honor the memory of its victims.

105th Congress (1997–98)—No action taken on H. Con. Res. 55,

a resolution to recognize the ‘‘Armenian Genocide.’’

106th Congress (1999–2000)—H. Res. 398, a resolution calling on

the President to provide training on genocide to all U.S. Foreign

Service officers by familiarizing them with U.S. records related to

the Armenian Genocide and calling on the President to commemorate the Armenian Genocide, was introduced and subsequently the

subject of a hearing and approved by the International Relations

Committee’s Subcommittee on International Operations and

Human Rights on September 14, 2000. H. Res. 596, a slightly

modified version of H. Res. 398, was adopted by the International

Relations Committee on October 3, 2000.

Jurisdiction of the International Relations Committee

Prior to the 104th Congress, ‘‘Armenian Genocide’’ resolutions

were considered ‘‘commemorative’’ measures within the jurisdiction

of the former House of Representatives’ Post Office and Civil Service Committee. In the 104th Congress, that Committee was disbanded and such ‘‘commemoratives’’ were also prohibited under the

Rules of the House of Representatives. Appropriately-worded measures ‘‘noting’’ certain occasions may still be introduced, however,

despite the Rules of the House. Resolutions noting or recognizing

the ‘‘Armenian Genocide,’’ worded in an appropriate fashion, are

8

therefore now routinely referred to the International Relations

Committee.

COMMITTEE ACTION

H. Res. 596 was introduced by Representative Radanovich on

September 27, 2000, and referred by the Speaker to the Committee

on International Relations.

A similar resolution, H. Res. 398, was introduced by Representative Radanovich on November 18, 1999 and referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights on February 15, 2000. The Subcommittee on International Operations and

Human Rights held a hearing on H. Res. 398 on September 14,

2000. Witnesses: Amb. Marc Grossman, Director General of the

Foreign Service, Department of State; Dr. Justin McCarthy, Professor of History, University of Louisville; Dr. Robert F. Melson,

Professor of Political Science, Purdue University; Dr. Roger W.

Smith, Professor of Government, College of William and Mary; and

Amb. Gu ̈ndu ̈z Suphi Aktan, Former Ambassador of the Republic of

Turkey. The Subcommittee on International Operations and

Human Rights held a markup of H. Res. 398 on September 21,

2000, forwarding the measure to the Full Committee by voice vote.

On September 28 and October 3, 2000, the International Relations Committee marked up H. Res. 596, pursuant to notice, in

open session.

On September 28, 2000, the Committee adopted by voice vote an

amendment by Mr. Tancredo that calls upon the President in the

President’s annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide to state that the modern day Republic of Turkey did not conduct the Armenian Genocide, which was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire.

An amendment offered by Mr. Lantos providing a complete substitute for the resolution was ruled out of order as non-germane

and Mr. Lantos’ appeal of the ruling of the Chair on the point of

order was tabled (on motion of Mr. Radanovich) by voice vote (a recorded vote on the tabling motion, demanded by Mr. Lantos, having

been refused).

On October 3, 2000, the Committee received testimony during

the markup from Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and Mr.

Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik, Spokesman for the Turkish Parliamentary

Delegation.

An amendment offered by Mr. Burton that would have added

language stating that U.S. national security interests are likely to

be negated without the establishment of peace and reconciliation

between the several successor states who comprised portions of the

Ottoman Empire, but not necessarily limited to Republic of Turkey

and the Republic of Armenia, and calls upon the President to initiate a policy of active engagement to promote peace and reconciliation in the region, was not agreed to by a rollcall vote of 15 to

19.

An amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher to substitute a reference to ‘‘Young Turk Government’’ for a reference to the ‘‘government of the Ottoman Empire’’ at one point in the resolution was

agreed to by a rollcall vote of 34 to 0.

9

Subsequently, the previous question was ordered by unanimous

consent and, a quorum being present, the Committee agreed by

record vote of 24 ayes to 11 noes, with 2 voting present, to a motion

offered by Mr. Smith to favorably report the resolution, as amended, to the House of Representatives. A motion to reconsider was

laid on the table.

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause (3)(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires that the results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with the names of those voting

for or against, be printed in the committee report.

Description of amendment, motion, order, or other proposition

(Votes during markup of H. Res. 596—September 28 and October 3, 2000)

Vote No. 1 (11:40 a.m.).—The Burton amendment adding language stating that U.S. national security interests are likely to be

negated without the establishment of peace and reconciliation between the several successor states who comprised portions of the

Ottoman Empire, but not necessarily limited to Republic of Turkey

and the Republic of Armenia, and calls upon the President to initiate a policy of active engagement to promote peace and reconciliation in the region.

Voting Yes: Bereuter, Burton, Ballenger, Sanford, Salmon,

Houghton, Campbell, Brady, Burr, Gillmor, Cooksey, Tancredo,

Lantos, Faleomavaega, and Pomeroy.

Voting No: Gilman, Smith, Gallegly, Rohrabacher, Royce, Chabot,

Radanovich, Gejdenson, Berman, Ackerman, Payne, Menendez,

McKinney, Sherman, Rothman, Davis, Lee, Crowley, and Hoeffel.

Ayes, 15. Noes, 19.

Vote No. 2 (12:06 p.m.).—Rohrabacher amendment that replaces

‘‘Young Turk Government’’ with ‘‘government of the Ottoman Empire’’ at one point in the resolution.

Voting Yes: Gilman, Bereuter, Smith, Burton, Gallegly,

Ballenger, Rohrabacher, Royce, Chabot, Sanford, Salmon, Houghton, Campbell, McHugh, Brady, Burr, Gillmor, Radanovich,

Cooksey, Tancredo, Gejdenson, Lantos, Berman, Ackerman,

Faleomavaega, Menendez, McKinney, Hilliard, Sherman, Rothman,

Davis, Lee, Crowley, and Hoeffel.

Voting No: none.

Ayes, 34. Noes, 0.

Vote No. 3 (12:10 p.m.).—Smith motion to favorably report to the

House of Representatives H. Res. 596, as amended.

Voting Yes: Gilman, Smith, Gallegly, Ros-Lehtinen, Rohrabacher,

Royce, Chabot, Campbell, McHugh, Radanovich, Tancredo, Gejdenson, Berman, Ackerman, Menendez, Brown, McKinney, Sherman,

Rothman, Davis, Delahunt, Lee, Crowley, and Hoeffel.

Voting No: Bereuter, Burton, Ballenger, Salmon, Houghton,

Brady, Burr, Lantos, Faleomavaega, Danner, and Hilliard.

Voting ‘‘Present’’: Sanford and Cooksey.

Note.—The bill was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by

a rollcall vote of 24 ayes to 11 noes, with 2 voting ‘‘present’’.

10

OTHER MATTERS

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Committee reports the findings and

recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities

under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM FINDINGS

Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report to contain a summary of the

oversight findings and recommendations made by the Government

Reform Committee pursuant to clause (4)(c)(2) of rule X of those

rules. The Committee on International Relations has received no

such findings or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation.

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

The bill may be cited as the ‘‘Affirmation of the United States

Record on the Armenian Genocide.’’

Section 2. Findings

States that a genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire against ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deaths of one and one-half million Armenians and the

deportation of one-half million more, eliminating Armenians from

their homeland of 2,500 years;

States that in May 1915 the Allied Powers of World War I

charged the government of that Empire with a ‘‘crime against humanity’’ for the first time in history and stated that they would

hold personally responsible for that crime all members of the Ottoman Government;

States that the post-World War I Turkish Government itself indicted top leaders involved in the ‘‘organization and execution’’ of

the Armenian Genocide and ‘‘in the massacre and destruction of

the Armenians,’’ yet the verdicts won against those individuals in

the courts, including death sentences, were not enforced;

States that the United States National Archives and the archives

of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain and Russia hold a vast

body of evidence and extensive and thorough documentation on the

11

Armenian Genocide and that the national archives of Turkey

should also include records related to those responsible for the Armenian Genocide;

States that U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau led protests by various countries’ officials against the Armenian Genocide and described to the State Department the policy

of the government of the Ottoman Empire as a ‘‘campaign of race

extermination’’;

Refers to a Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916

as resolving that the President should designate a day on which

U.S. citizens might contribute funds for relief of the Armenians

then experiencing untold suffering;

States that U.S. President Wilson encouraged creation of the

Near East Relief organization which contributed $116 million in

aid to the survivors of the Armenian Genocide from 1915 to 1930;

Refers to a Senate Resolution 359 of May 11, 1920 as stating

that the truth of the reported massacres of Armenians had been established;

States that Adolf Hitler had stated in 1939 in response to concerns over his pending invasion of Poland ‘‘[w]ho, after all, speaks

today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’’;

States that Rafael Lemkin, the earliest proponent of the Genocide Convention, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century and that he described genocide

as the sort of thing ‘‘the Turks did to the Armenians’’;

States that the Armenian Genocide was identified as the kind of

crime the United Nations wished to prevent when the U.N. adopted

the first resolution on genocide on December 11, 1946;

States that the U.N. War Crimes Commission referred to the Armenian Genocide as the type of act the term ‘‘crimes against humanity’’ was intended to cover as a precedent for the Nuremberg

tribunals;

States that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted a report in 1985 that stated that the Ottoman massacre of Armenians

in 1915–16 was a case of genocide during the 20th century and

that possibly well over half of the Armenian population, at least

one million people, had been killed or death-marched;

States that the Armenian Genocide has been acknowledged by

countries and international bodies including the United States,

Great Britain, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and others;

States that the United States Holocaust Memorial Council has

included the Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial

Museum;

Cites statements by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush and

Bill Clinton referring to the Armenian Genocide;

Cites a 1993 United States Court of Appeals ruling that an assertion of ambiguity regarding the facts of the Armenian Genocide

would contradict longstanding U.S. policy;

States that United States Under Secretary of State Stuart

Eizenstat pledged in April 1999 that the administration would

raise with the Republic of Turkey the recovery of Armenian assets

held by the Imperial Ottoman Bank at the time of the genocide period;

12

States that it is important that the President ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding

and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic

cleansing and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce the judgements of the Turkish courts against the responsible officials.

Section 3. Declaration of policy

Calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the

United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity

concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and

genocide documented in the United States record relating to the

Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce

the judgements of the Turkish courts against the responsible officials;

Calls upon the President to characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide in any annual message issued to commemorate that event and to use that

annual message to recall the proud history of the United States

intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide;

Calls upon the President to make it clear in his annual message

commemorating the Armenian Genocide that the modern day Republic of Turkey did not conduct the Armenian Genocide, which

was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire.

(13)

DISSENTING VIEWS OF MR. LANTOS, MR. BURTON, AND MR.

FALEOMAVAEGA

We share the majority’s concern for the atrocities committed

against the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during the

period 1915–1923 in which an estimated million and a half Armenians died. American Presidents have acknowledged this tragedy

and have issued statements annually on April 24 on the Armenian

Day of Remembrance. The Statement issued by President Clinton

in April of this year is representative of the annual statements

issued to commemorate that tragedy:

STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT—APRIL 24, 2000, ARMENIAN

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

Today we remember a great tragedy of the twentieth

century: the deportations and massacres of roughly one

and a half million Armenians in the final years of the

Ottoman Empire. I join Armenians around the world, including the Armenian-American community, in mourning

the loss of those innocent lives. I also extend my sympathy

to the survivors and their descendants for the hardships

they suffered. I call upon all Americans to renew their

commitment to build a world where such events are not allowed to happen again. The lesson we must learn from the

stark annals of history is that we must forge a more humane future for the peoples of all nations.

We believe that statement reflects the sentiments of all Americans, and they are sentiments which I share.

At the same time, however, the statements in this resolution go

beyond the factual evidence in terms of the role of the Ottoman

government in perpetrating the atrocities that were committed.

There has been a great deal said about ‘‘genocide’’ and the direct

involvement and instigation of the Ottoman government in the

atrocities. While we do not wish to minimize in any way the enormity of the atrocities committed against the Armenian people, the

statements in the resolution do go beyond the historical evidence

of Ottoman involvement. The Ottoman government was weak and

ineffectual and in the process of collapse at the time of these tragic

events, but there are clear indications that the government itself

did not order or instigate them.

On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic message to the Secretary of State of the British Foreign Office in London. The British had detained Ottoman officials in Malta

and were considering placing them on trial ‘‘in connection with the

Armenian massacres.’’ The British government requested access to

diplomatic reports from American consular officials in the Ottoman

Empire at the time of the atrocities against Armenia. The U.S. DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:17 Oct 05, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR933.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR933
14

partment of State made available to the British government those

reports which the Department judged the most useful in providing

evidence of Ottoman officials inciting the violence against Armenians. After examining the most detailed and specific of the material in the State Department files, the British Embassy in Washington informed Lord Curzon, the British Secretary of State, that

‘‘there was nothing there which could be used as evidence against

the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports,

seen, while furnishing full accounts of the atrocities committed,

made mention, however, of only two names of the Turkish officials

in question * * * and in these cases were confined to personal

opinions of these officials on the part of the writer, not concrete

facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating

evidence.’’ (Dispatch Number 722, July 13, 1921, from R.C. Craigie,

British Embassy at Washington, to the Earl Curzon of Kedleston,

Secretary of State, Foreign Office, London.)

The most serious issue of concern to us is not the inaccuracies

that are present in the text of this resolution, but much more importantly, the negative impact that adoption of this resolution will

have not only upon United States relations with Turkey, but on a

wide range of U.S. national interests in which Turkey is our active

and necessary partner. These vital national interests include: continued strong, international efforts to contain Saddam Hussein, including the participation of the Turkish government in overflight

of Northern Iraq; efforts to achieve peace and stability in Cyprus

and in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; and Turkish engagement in

the construction of a trans-Caucus oil pipeline to provide energy security into the future. Our commercial relationship with Turkey

also could be put at risk by this ill-considered measure.

Importantly, a number of current and former United States government officials with long experience in defense and national security issues have expressed very serious concern about the consequences of the adoption of this resolution. These expressions of

concern are of such importance that we include them in this statement of minority views. The resolution reported from the Committee in International Relations is H. Res. 596, but administration

views were requested by the Committee on an earlier version of

that resolution—H. Res. 398. The new resolution differs from the

earlier version in only minor respects.

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, FROM BIPARTISAN GROUP

OF FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY LEADERS, OCTOBER 2, 2000

Hon. BENJAMIN GILMAN, Chairman, Committee on International Relations,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We urge opposition to House Resolution

596, recently passed by the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the House International Relations

Committee, concerning the attention which should be given by the

President to the ‘‘Armenian Genocide’’ in American foreign policy.

15

Whatever you or others may feel about the merits of this resolution, it is important to understand the real world consequences of

its adoption. The potential for damage to U.S. interests in a vital

region dramatically outweighs, in our judgement, any acknowledgment of past atrocities during World War I and its aftermath.

Turkey’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Balkans, as well as its unique position as the only Muslim democratic country with a vigorous market

economy, places it at the center of U.S. short and long term strategic interests.

Now is not the time to test the will of an indispensable ally

which, for over forty years, has proven its loyalty and strategic importance. A staunch ally during the Cold War, Turkey will be even

more crucial to U.S. security interests in the 21st century in a region plagued by new security challenges, including political instability, Islamic extremism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and narcotics trafficking.

Turkey’s cooperation is essential to promote U.S. strategic interests in the region. Yet with the adoption of this resolution, no

Turkish government will be able to be as forthcoming as in the

past, given its public’s strong sensitivities to events clouded by history. Consider the consequences:

• Iraq—Amid recent fears of increased Iraqi pressures on Kuwait reminiscent of the Gulf crisis in 1990, Turkey remains central

to U.S.-led efforts to contain Iraqi aggression. Turkey continues to

host U.S. and British forces participating in Operation Northern

Watch as they enforce the no-fly zone in northern Iraq and protect

the people there from Saddam. And it is continuing to impose sanctions against Iraq despite the fact that it has cost the Turkish

economy over $35 billion.

• The Newly Independent States—Turkey is a geostrategic

bridge between the newly independent states of the Caucasus and

Central Asia and the West. An energy transportation corridor

through Turkey will prevent Russia or Iran from monopolizing

strategic gas and oil reserves in the region.

• Regional Cooperation—Turkey’s great strides in combating indigenous terrorism continue to be a model for other countries. The

U.S. State Department has consistently praised Turkey for significant contributions in the fight against terrorism.

• The Balkans—Integral to our efforts to end ethnic bloodshed in

the Balkans, Turkey participated in the air war in Kosovo and

housed thousands of fleeing refugees. Turkey continues to help

NATO secure a lasting peace in Kosovo by maintaining a 1,000–

man brigade there and is helping stabilize Bosnia with its 700–

man policing force.

• Relations with Israel—Turkey was the first Muslim country to

establish relations with Israel over 50 years ago. Over the past ten

years, this relationship has matured into a full-blown ‘‘strategic

partnership’’ that includes joint military exercises.

Passage of the resolution would strengthen the hand of those in

Turkey who oppose Turkey’s further integration into the West and

would deliver a several blow to U.S. interests in the region. We

urge you to carefully weigh the implications of this resolution and

16

vote against wherever it may be considered, either in committee or

on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Frank Carlucci, Former Secretary of Defense; William J.

Perry, Former Secretary of Defense; Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr., Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs

of Staff; General Alexander Haig, Former Secretary

of State and Former Supreme Allied Commander for

Europe; General Wesley K. Clark, Former Supreme

Allied Commander for Europe; General George

Joulwan, Former Supreme Allied Commander for

Europe; Richard Allen, Former National Security

Advisor.

Richard Perle, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense;

General John Shalikashvili, Former Chairman,

Joint Chiefs of Staff and Former Supreme Allied

Commander for Europe; General Brent Scowcroft,

Former National Security Advisor; James Woolsey,

Former Director of Central Intelligence; General

James Jamerson, Former Deputy Commander-inChief, United States European Command; General

John W. Vessey, Jr., Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs

of Staff.

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE J. DENNIS HASTERT, SPEAKER, HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES, FROM SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BILL

COHEN, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT,

Speaker, House of Representatives

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I appreciated the opportunity to speak with

you on H. Res. 398, the United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution. As we discussed, I am

concerned with the unintended harm passage of this Resolution

could have on our efforts to build peace and stability in the region.

In no way do I mean to downplay the Armenian tragedy. In recognition of that suffering, the U.S. Government has a tradition of

commemorating Armenian Remembrance Day each April 24,

mourning the loss of innumerable Armenian lives and challenging

all Americans to recommit themselves to ensuring that such events

never again happen.

However, passing judgment on this history through legislation

could have a negative impact on Turkish-Armenian relations and

on our security interests in the region, H. Res. 398 would complicate our efforts to protect our interests in the region and sustain

our positive relationship with Turkey; a strong and strategic ally.

Again, I appreciated the opportunity to talk with you about this

important issue. Please let me know if I can provide any further

information to you on this manner.

Sincerely,

BILL COHEN.

17

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE BARBARA LARKIN, JULY 13, 2000

Hon. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, Chairman, Committee on International Relations,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is to respond to your Committee’s request for the Administration’s views on H. Res. 398, the

‘‘United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian

Genocide Resolution.’’ Over the years, the Department of State has

set forth its objections, in detail, to previous congressional resolutions on this issue. These objections remain no less valid today. In

essence, the Administration believes that H. Res. 398 would complicate its efforts to build a peaceful, prosperous, and stable future

for the people of the region.

The Administration opposes legislative measures to deal with the

sensitive issue raised in H. Res. 398. That the Armenian people endured horrible massacres and suffering during the First World War

is beyond doubt. That the peoples of Turkey and Armenia must

find a way to come to terms with their shared history is a principle

we strongly support. But we also agree with the position adopted

by other friends of both Armenia and Turkey, including France and

Israel, that the question of how these massacres are characterized

is best left to historians, and cannot be legislated from outside.

The President and the Secretary of State ascribe great importance to the process of building peace, stability, and mutual confidence in the Caucasus region. Normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relationship is a vital element of any Nagorno-Karabakh

settlement, and thus of Armenia’s future. H. Res. 398 would be

likely to have the unintended effect of injuring ongoing efforts to

improve relations between Turkey and Armenia. It would thus deal

a severe setback to prospects for a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement

between Armenia and Azerbaijan at an especially sensitive moment

in the Minsk Group-sponsored peace process. The U.S. has a crucial role to play in nurturing a positive political climate in the region.

The memory of the tragic massacres will be forever with us.

President Clinton has preserved the tradition of commemorating

Armenian Remembrance Day each April 24, issuing a solemn statement that mourns the loss of innocent Armenian lives and challenges all Americans to recommit themselves to ensuring that such

events never occur again. We believe this is the most fitting and

appropriate tribute to the victims of the massacres.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the

standpoint of the Administration’s program there is no objection to

the submission of this letter.

Sincerely,

BARBARA LARKIN,

Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

18

LETTER TO THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, FROM UNDERSECRETARY

OF DEFENSE WALTER B. SLOCOMBE, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000

Hon. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to offer the views of the Department of Defense on H. Res. 398, the ‘‘United States Training

on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution.’’ The

Department of State conveyed to you in June the Administration’s

objections to this and previous resolutions on this issue, and the

Administration’s continuing opposition to legislative measures to

deal with the sensitive issues raised in H. Res. 398. Ambassador

Grossman reiterated these objections in recent testimony before the

subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. We

continue to be concerned that passage of H. Res. 398 would have

substantial negative effects on our strategic interests in the region,

complicating our effort to build peace and stability.

There is no doubt that the Armenians suffered greatly during

World War I. It is clearly in the interest of both the Turkish and

Armenian peoples that they together come to terms with these

events. President Clinton has continued the tradition of commemorating Armenian Remembrance Day each April 24, mourning the

loss of innumerable Armenian lives and challenging all Americans

to recommit themselves to ensuring that such events never happen

again. This is a fitting and appropriate tribute to the victims and

a means of fostering awareness of this historic tragedy.

However, passing judgment on this history through legislation

could only have a negative impact on Turkish-Armenian relations

and on our security interests in the region. Turkey is important to

U.S. defense interests because it is at the epicenter of many crucial

United States security concerns and has actively supported United

States interests. Turkey has faithfully guarded the southeast flank

of NATO for almost 50 years, and remains one of NATO’s most

steadfast members. Over 2000 Turkish soldiers are deployed in

Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia. Ankara supports our Iraq

policy, a stance which has resulted in substantial economic costs to

Turkey in lost trade. Operation Northern Watch, the enforcement

of the northern no-fly zone over Iraq, continues to operate from the

Turkish base at Incirlik.

Further, as recent events have shown, it is difficult to overstate

Turkey’s strategic value. The Balkans, the Persian Gulf and much

of the Middle East are within reach of Turkish bases. Syria, Iraq,

Iran and the oil-rich but volatile Caucasus region lie along its borders. With key U.S. security interests implicated in each of these,

our alliance and relationship with Turkey will only become more

vital in the years ahead. H. Res. 398 would complicate our efforts

to build relationships and protect our interests in the region and

sustain our positive relationship with a key, strategically placed

ally.

19

Thank you for considering our views in your deliberations on this

legislation.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER B. SLOCOMBE.

TOM LANTOS.

DAN BURTON.

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA.

AMO HOUGHTON.

PAT DANNER.

KEVIN BRADY.

Æ