U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69-533 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

H. RES. 398, THE UNITED STATES TRAINING

ON AND COMMEMORATION OF THE ARMENIAN

GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

Serial No. 106–181

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

[VACANCY]

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

PETER T. KING, New York

MATT SALMON, Arizona

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

GROVER JOSEPH REES, Subcommittee Staff Director

JEFFREY A. PILCH, Democratic Professional Staff Director

DOUGLAS C. ANDERSON, Counsel

MARTA PINCHEIRA, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

WITNESSES

The Honorable James E. Rogan, a Representative in Congress from California ..................................................................................................................... 11

The Honorable David E. Bonior, a Representative in Congress from Michigan ......................................................................................................................... 12

Ambassador Marc Grossman, Director General of the Foreign Service, U.S.

Department of State ............................................................................................ 21

Robert F. Melson, Professor of Political Science, Purdue University .................. 36

Ambassador Gu ̈ndu ̈ z Suphi Aktan, former Ambassador of the Republic of

Turkey ................................................................................................................... 39

Justin McCarthy, Professor of History, University of Louisville ......................... 42

Roger W. Smith, Professor of Government, College of William and Mary ......... 45

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from

New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Operations

and Human Rights ............................................................................................... 72

The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from California ..................................................................................................................... 77

The Honorable David E. Bonior, a Representative in Congress from Michigan ......................................................................................................................... 79

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from New

Jersey .................................................................................................................... 82

Ambassador Marc Grossman .................................................................................. 84

Robert F. Melson ...................................................................................................... 88

Ambassador Gu ̈ndu ̈ z Suphi Aktan ......................................................................... 116

Justin McCarthy ...................................................................................................... 118

Roger W. Smith ........................................................................................................ 121

Additional material submitted for the record:

H. Res. 398, The United States Training on and Commemoration of the

Armenian Genocide Resolution ........................................................................... 125

Supplemental response submitted by Ambassador Marc Grossman ................... 136

Letter from Prof. Elie Wiesel to Hon. Christopher H. Smith ............................... 137

Letter from Dr. Deborah E. Lipstadt to Hon. Christopher H. Smith .................. 138

Letter and supplemental materials submitted by Dr. Roger W. Smith .............. 139

Library of Congress translation of supplemental materials submitted by Dr.

Roger W. Smith .................................................................................................... 141

Chapter 24 of ‘‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story,’’ by Henry Morgenthau, submitted by Hon. Christopher H. Smith ................................................................ 143

Page

IV

Submitted by Dr. Robert F. Melson:

Selections from ‘‘Encyclopedia of Genocide, Volume 1’’ ................................. 155

‘‘The Power of Acknowledgement,’’ by Peter Bakalian .................................. 159

Statements about the Armenian Genocide by American diplomats on

site in Turkey ................................................................................................ 164

Essential facts about the systemic state planning of the Armenian Genocide by the Iddihadist government of Turkey in 1915 ............................... 172

Facts related to the family of Greg Bedian, submitted by Hon. Benjamin

A. Gilman .............................................................................................................. 177

(1)

H. RES. 398, THE UNITED STATES TRAINING

ON AND COMMEMORATION OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:19 p.m. in room

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith,

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Subcommittee will come to order.

Let me apologize to our witnesses and to our friends who have

joined us today. Obviously the intervening vote put us behind

schedule a little bit, but we will start and this hearing will stay

in session so that everyone will be heard and can ask the maximum number of questions. So I hope nobody is under any time

constraints, because it is important that we have a thorough hearing on this very important issue.

I am pleased to convene this hearing of the Subcommittee on

International Operations and Human Rights. Today we will hear

testimony on House Resolution 398, calling upon the President to

provide appropriate training and materials to the Foreign Service

officers, State Department officials, and other appropriate executive branch officials on the Armenian genocide.

In 1915, there were about 2 million Armenians living in what

was then the Ottoman Empire. They were living in a region that

they inhabited for 2,500 years. By 1923, well over 90 percent of

these Armenians had disappeared. Most of them, as many as 1.5

million were dead. The remainder had been forced into exile.

The government of the empire, whose leaders were members of

the movement known as the Young Turks, called this campaign

against Armenians a mass deportation rather than a mass murder,

but the United States Ambassador to Turkey at the time, Henry

Morgenthau, called it a ‘‘campaign of race extermination.’’

The British, French, and Russian governments accused the

Young Turk government of a ‘‘crime against humanity,’’ the first

time in history that charge was ever made by one state against another, and even the government of the Republic of Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, tried and convicted a number

of high ranking Young Turk officials for their role in what the

2

Turkish government then called ‘‘the massacre and destruction of

the Armenians.’’ When the term genocide was invented in 1944 to describe the

systematic destruction of an entire people, its author, Raphael

Lemkin, illustrated the term by saying it was ‘‘the sort of thing

Hitler did to the Jews and the Turks did to the Armenians.’’ Unfortunately, memories seem to have faded. The government of

the Republic of Turkey and some of its apologists in the United

States now deny that the Armenian genocide ever happened. They

do not deny that people died by the hundreds and thousands or

even that these deaths were often preceded by mass rape, torture,

and other unspeakable atrocities, but they fall back on the standard arguments that have always used to defend the indefensible.

They say it happened during wartime that the Armenians were

being deported because many of them were in sympathy with the

enemies of the Empire, and that the atrocities were random acts

committed by civilians and by soldiers acting without authorization

from the central government.

These apologists dismiss contrary statements by representatives

of the governments of the United States, France and England by

saying that these officials were biased against the Ottoman Empire

and against the Turkish people, but this dismissal ignores similar

statements by the Ambassadors of Germany and Italy, who were

allied with the Empire in the First World War. It also dismisses

the undeniable fact that the Armenians were being forcibly relocated to a desert in which even those who were not massacred had

no serious chance to survive.

Even among those in this country who do not deny the basic

facts of the Armenian genocide, there often seems to be a conspiracy of silence and of obfuscation. Whenever the issue threatens

to surface in Congress, we are quietly but firmly reminded by diplomats and other executive branch officials that Turkey is a NATO

ally and has assisted us in pursuing important strategic objectives

in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet Germany is also an important ally, and these same diplomats and officials would never

dream of denying or ignoring the Holocaust.

Friends do not let friends commit crimes against humanity or

refuse to come to terms with them once they have happened. Ironically, the principal effect of this systematic denial of the Armenian

genocide is that it forces those who insist on the acknowledgement

of the genocide to prove their case over and over and over again

in more and more detail. So instead of learning the lessons of the

past and applying them to the future, we find ourselves still arguing after 85 years about whether the past really happened.

Finally, in this and every other human rights debate we hear the

argument that the United States should mind its own business,

that we should worry about our own human rights problems and

let other nations worry about theirs. Oddly, this often comes from

the same sources that are quick to accuse the United States of isolationism when we fail to surrender our resources or our sovereignty quite as quickly as they would like us to.

The answer is that, of course, we do have human rights violations here. The acknowledgement that we have such domestic problems imposes a responsibility to work diligently to fix them. The

3

United States has perhaps the world’s best developed system for

redress and correction of offenses by government officials against

private citizens, but it does not absolve us from the responsibility

to ensure that the U.S. foreign policy promotes honesty, morality,

and justice.

United States foreign policy must be realistic and flexible, but it

need not and must not be implicit on a conspiracy of silence about

genocide. This resolution takes two important steps toward ending

that silence. It urges the President to start calling the Armenian

genocide by its right name, and it calls on the Secretary of State

to ensure that U.S. diplomatic and other officials be thoroughly familiarized with the facts about the Armenian genocide.

This resolution was first called to my attention by Congressman

Jim Rogan and by Congressman George Radanovich. I told them I

would take a close look at the resolution and strongly consider

scheduling a Subcommittee markup so that the full International

Relations Committee can consider it in time for consideration by

the whole House in this session of Congress.

I am happy to say that we have tentatively scheduled a markup

for next Wednesday, September 20. I expect that there will be different views among the Members of the Subcommittee about the

merits of the resolution, but it clearly deserves an up or down vote.

My own view is that this resolution deserves to pass because at its

core it simply affirms that the United States foreign policy should

begin by telling the truth.

I would like to yield to my very good friend, Cynthia McKinney,

the Ranking Member of our Subcommittee, the gentlelady from

Georgia.

Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me,

and thank you for calling this very important hearing. I have another hearing going on right now on the issue of human rights in

the United States, so please do not take my early departure as a

sign of my not caring about this very important issue, but rather

just a sign of the fact that we have a very hectic schedule up here

in these waning days of this session.

The legacy of the Armenian genocide and of all genocides must

be remembered so that the human tragedy of genocides, which has

continued until the present, will not be forgotten. It is important

that the truth be told and not politicized. As too many of us do not

know, from 1915 to 1923 the Ottoman Government had over 1.5

million Armenians massacred and more than 500,000 survivors

forcibly expelled from their historical homeland.

U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during this period,

Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in a statement at the time said when

Turkish authorities gave the orders for the massive Armenian deportations, they were ‘‘merely giving the death warrant to a whole

race. They understood this well, and in their conversation with me

they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.’’

So horrific were the acts that the Ottoman Government perpetrated on the Armenian people that Ambassador Morgenthau

noted, ‘‘I am confident that the whole history of the human race

contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and

persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared

to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.’’

4

Well, as we all know, this was not the end of genocide in the

twentieth century as the Armenian massacres were used as a blueprint for Hitler’s Third Reich and efficient manner of conquest. Recently, the Rwandan and the Yugoslavian genocides used the same

efficient methods in order to subjugate and obliterate an entire

group of people. Hitler’s attitude established a directly historical

connection between the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, demonstrating that the first genocide of the century was a

precursor of worse things to come.

Hitler incredibly referred to the extermination of the Armenians

as a laudable event, an example to emulate and a historical model.

As for the Nazis’ genocide of the Jews, gypsies, Catholics and homosexuals, they even killed their own retarded children.

The Armenian genocide has been called the forgotten genocide,

but it is not the only forgotten genocide. The Rwandan genocide in

which an estimated 1 million people died was largely ignored by

most of the world, and the United States could have prevented it

and instead, for political reasons, chose to do nothing. In fact, we

now know that the Clinton Administration actively fought to ensure that nothing would be done to protect the innocent Rwandan

lives.

The same activism to not be involved occurred in Srebrenica in

1995 when the United Nations surrendered 30,000 Bosnian Muslims to the Serbian army knowing that they would be slaughtered.

Crimes against humanity are being committed as we speak in

Tibet, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, and the world

does nothing. What right does any one of us have to ignore what

happened to the Armenians?

As I look around this room today of different ethnic groups, different religions, different races, I am reminded of the words attributed to Martin Neibhur. In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I did not speak because I was not a Communist. Then

they came for the Jews, and I did not speak because I was not a

Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak

up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the

Catholics, and I did not speak up because I was a Protestant. Then

they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Ms. McKinney, thank you very much.

The Chair will recognize Members of the Committee going down

the line by when they came to the Subcommittee hearing.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is no doubt in my mind that especially the very strong

words by Ms. McKinney, the great admonition that she has given

us to pay attention to the issues that confront us today around the

world, are true, are accurate and are compelling.

We know what is happening. We know that in not only the areas

that she has talked about but in other areas, especially on the African continent, places like Sudan, of course, where there are events

underway which we can in fact have an impact upon by our decisions we make in this Congress.

I am fully supportive of any attempt that we would have and

that we would contemplate to bring an end to the kind of situations

5

that she has described. You know I have certainly myself acted in

whatever capacity I could to ameliorate those conditions.

This particular resolution, however, has a different flavor to it,

and I must admit to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am concerned about

it today because I do not know and I cannot see as of yet what real

purpose it serves, how much benefit it will bring both to the United

States, to Turkey, to our ally, or, frankly, to anyone else because

in fact what we are talking about here is a situation that you cannot necessarily attribute to the government of Turkey today, a

problem directly related to their efforts, their intent, and yet that

is exactly, of course, who would be most negatively affected by such

a resolution.

The Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923 in response to and

in revolt against the Ottoman Empire and thus bears no responsibility for the suffering caused by its predecessor, yet that is, nonetheless, Turkey today would bear the brunt of the recriminations

developing out of this resolution.

So I am not convinced yet. Certainly I am here to hear the testimony, and I look forward to that, but I just wanted to indicate my

concern on the front end that we may not be accomplishing what

we hope would be the outcome of such a decision on our part to

pass such a resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, as I

have said, my compliments and personal commendation for your

leadership, and I say outstanding leadership, over the years in

championing the cause of human rights on behalf of our nation and

working toward those nations who honestly are trying to rectify the

situation with human rights violations around the world.

I also would like to echo my sentiments in fully agreeing with

the statement issued earlier by my colleague, the gentlelady from

Georgia, Ms. McKinney, at the same time also tempering my concerns echoed by my good friend from Colorado, Mr. Tancredo, about

the substance of this resolution.

As a Member of the Subcommittee, I have always tried to wonder

every time we use the word genocide who are we talking about; the

torturing and the murdering of some 250,000 people in Yugoslavia

under the presidency of Milosevic, or is it the 2 million killings of

Pol Pot in Cambodia, or the systematic slaughtering of 25 million

people under Stalin’s rule, or the exterminating of 6 million Jews

under Nazism?

I am trying to earnestly, Mr. Chairman, in giving the word genocide, if it is given in that right format in terms of what happened,

I do not know. I am certainly here wanting to learn very much

from the testimonies that will be elicited, solicited from our Committee this afternoon.

I want to offer my personal welcome to our colleagues who are

here to testify, my good friend from California, Mr. Rogan, and also

our distinguished Minority Whip, the gentleman from Michigan,

Mr. Bonior.

Mr. Chairman, I do have some concerns of the resolution. This

does not mean in any way that I lessen my concerns of the slaughVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
6

tering or the killing of the Armenians in that period of time in our

world’s history.

At the same time also I express my limited knowledge and understanding of how the Ottoman Empire functioned and the rivalries that took place between it and Russia and the fact that there

were hundreds and thousands of the Turkish people that were also

killed in whatever wars that took place between 1915 and 1923.

There are some expressions of concern, Mr. Chairman. Turkey,

in 40 years of the Cold War, has never once flinched in terms of

its loyalty and support of the NATO ally system as we were fighting the superpower then, the Soviet Union. I do not know of any

country in our NATO relationship than Turkey that has never once

faltered in its commitment to our strategic and to our national interest. I think we have to take that in proper perspective.

I realize again I am not trying to paint a picture just favorable

to this, but I am just trying to give it perspective, a historical perspective where Turkey was when it was the Ottoman Empire,

where Turkey was in 1923 when it was organized again, even

today as a democracy.

Mr. Chairman, as we sit here today listening to the substance of

the House Resolution and those who are going to testify, American

warplanes are taking off from Turkish air bases to patrol the skies

over northern Iraq. They cannot be there without the full cooperation of our Turkish ally, an ally whose soldiers have fought side by

side with us since the Korean War.

As we sit here today discussing this resolution, our special envoy,

Ambassador Al Moses, is working with both the Greek and Turkish

Governments to solve one of the most intractable regional problems

in that area of the world, the issue of Cyprus.

As we sit here today, American oil companies and the Administration is looking to move ahead on building a new oil pipeline

across Turkey to deliver crude oil to America at a time when oil

prices are high and likely to go even higher.

As we sit here today, the Administration is seeking to end the

war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a war that has caused almost 1 million Azeri to become refugees in their own country.

I raise these points, Mr. Chairman, to remind our colleagues that

Turkey, a long-time friend and ally, plays a central role in helping

us meet, understand and solve issues that fundamentally affect us

in our national interests.

Were this resolution to be adopted, I do not know what the results of the vote are going to be, and I am not going to make a

guess out of this, but I will suggest, Mr. Chairman, the resolution

as written has severe limitations. It is non-binding. It is unenforceable. There is nothing to compel the Department of State to create

the education program referenced, and I suspect, given this Administration’s, in fact all previous Administrations’, opposition, such a

program would never, ever be created.

I am concerned about the substance of the resolution, Mr. Chairman, but I will reserve my judgment until we hear both sides of

the issue. Hopefully by then we will make an intelligent decision,

but I just wanted to share with my colleagues those concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

7

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr.

Faleomavaega.

I would like to ask Mr. Radanovich, who is the principal sponsor

of H. Res. 398, if he has any opening comments?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for holding this hearing

and the subsequent markup next Wednesday. I appreciate your

consideration of my bill that I have co-sponsored with the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bonior, the United States Training on

and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

This bipartisan resolution currently has more than 140 co-sponsors. It calls upon the President to provide for appropriate training

and materials to all Foreign Service officers, officials of the Department of State and any other executive branch employee involved in

responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and

genocide by familiarizing them with the U.S. record relating to the

Armenian genocide.

As my colleagues here today are aware, the history of the Armenian government is thoroughly documented. Our own archives hold

countless authoritative accounts of these events, as do the archives

of many western nations. The most important of these perhaps was

authored by the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey at the time, Henry

Morgenthau.

He wrote, ‘‘I am confident that the whole history of the human

race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres

and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the suffering of the Armenian race in 1915.’’ The human rights activist, Raphael Lemkin, the man who coined

the term genocide, cited the systematic destruction of the Armenians as a clear case of genocide. There is no serious debate over

these facts. I believe that this body is obligated to learn from this

tragic history and also use this knowledge to inform our foreign

policy community and the public about a very proud moment of

American history.

Responding to this crime against humanity, our government and

people acted together to protest the genocide of the Armenians.

This resolution preserves the truth about the Armenian genocide

and documents the considerable U.S. response to that crime. We do

so in order to empower our future leaders, backed by an informed

public, to do everything possible to end the occurrences of genocide.

As we begin this new millennium, genocide and ethnic cleansing

continue to plague nations around the world. As Members of Congress and as Members of the International Relations Committee,

we have a responsibility to ensure that the legacy of past genocides

are remembered so that this human tragedy will not be repeated.

Silence in the face of genocide, as we have learned, can only embolden those who would again seek the systematic destruction of an

entire race of people.

I am so pleased that Speaker Hastert shares our views about the

importance of this resolution. In fact, he recently pledged to schedule H. Res. 398 for a vote on the House floor.

I look forward to an interesting hearing this afternoon and a

swift advancement of this bill to the floor. Again, I thank my chairman, Mr. Smith, so much for holding this timely hearing.

Thank you.

8

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Radanovich.

I would like to ask Mr. Royce if he has any opening statement?

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I appreciate very much

your holding this hearing, as I do the work that Congressman

Radanovich and Congressman Rogan and others have put in to

make certain that we do not forget this tragedy.

Let me just say that at the end of this 8-year campaign that

began in 1915, the population of western Anatolia and Turkey that

had been composed of Armenian people was virtually wiped out,

and, as we have heard, the west ignored the words of Ambassador

Morgenthau at the time, as he tried to explain to the west that it

was ethnic cleansing. It is unfortunate that the Turkish Government to this day does not recognize this. Willful ignorance of the

lessons of history do much to repeat them.

My father was with the Seventh Army at Dachau, Germany,

when they liberated the camps, and he took pictures that day. To

this day, he carries on a war of correspondence with those who

claim that that Holocaust never occurred.

I think all of us should ask ourselves if this should not be a bit

on our conscious, the fact that Adolf Hitler was able to say ‘‘who

remembers the Armenians,’’ and I think we should ask ourselves

why is it that the world does not own up and does not admit the

historical record. I think we have an opportunity today to start to

rectify that, and I hope we do. It is important that we learn the

lesson from this 85-year-old tragedy.

In my home State of California, the state board of education has

incorporated the story of the Armenian genocide in the social studies curriculum there. This is the right thing to do. In my youth, I

talked to some who had survived in their villages this genocide; in

some cases, the sole survivors. The Turkish army had obliterated

those villages, massacred those people.

Now, it is not the same Turkish army of today. We understand

this. We understand this is a different government, but again there

is no reason not to set the record straight, and this resolution, as

stated, will call upon our president to provide for appropriate training and materials on this genocide to all Foreign Service officers

and State Department officials and executive branch employees.

It teaches about what? About ethnic cleansing and about human

rights. It is an important step to help us better understand genocide whenever it threatens to erupt by recognizing, and learning

about this crime against humanity, so we can begin to honor the

memory of the victims.

Chairman Smith, I deeply believe that we need to move this bill

along, and I respectfully urge you to mark up this bill and send it

to the International Relations Committee so we can bring it before

the full House for a vote.

I thank you again for holding this hearing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not a new issue.

I can remember debating this 10 to 15 years ago in the U.S. House

of Representatives on the floor. We debated it and went into great

detail. We had volumes and volumes of books on the Armenian

9

genocide and on the Turkish loss of life in the battles that took

place in the period we are talking about.

There is a great deal of contradiction about what happened, depending on which volume you are looking at. I am sure when we

get to the debate, if it gets to the floor, these volumes will be coming out again, and you will see historical differences based upon

different writers and different points of view.

However, today I would like to make a couple of points. First of

all, there is no question that the Armenian people endured horrible

massacres and suffering during the first world war. That is beyond

question. I do not think there is anyone in our government who

does not believe that innocent Armenians’ lives that were lost

should be honored and remembered. In fact, on April 24, every

year, President Clinton has preserved the tradition of commemorating by having Armenian Remembrance Day. We commend him

for that.

So the world has not forgotten the tragedies that occurred during

this time period, but let us not forget some other things. During

that time period, nearly 3 million Turks and other Muslims lost

their lives, and there were some real tragedies and atrocities that

took place at the hands of people on the other side that the Turks

had to deal with.

Now, this appears to be a broad based bill, but in fact it is very

narrowly focused. It provides for training of executive branch employees involved in responding to human rights, ethnic cleansing

and genocide. However, the resolution singles out only one specification for training of U.S. diplomats, and that is the so-called Armenian genocide.

Why does it not include the Holocaust? Why does it not include

the genocides that are taking place today in the Sudan, and I know

you worked on that, and other parts between the Hutus and the

Tutsis in Africa where millions have died, or the genocide that took

place in Ethiopia where millions of people were starved to death

while we were giving aid to help the starving masses over there?

None of that is mentioned. We are singling out one specific thing

that happened over 80 years ago, and I just do not understand

why.

Besides that, you know, I often wonder if we ever think about

our allies. I think Mr. Faleomavaega touched on that just a minute

ago. The Turks have been our friends and our allies in NATO

through the entire Cold War. When others fell by the wayside, the

Turkish Government, the Turkish people, were with us. They were

with us in Somalia. They were with us.

So what do we do? We are going back 82 years, and we are going

to give them a slap in the face, and it is going to hurt. Make no

mistake about it. If we pass this resolution, it is going to hurt our

foreign policy. There is just no question in my mind.

I would also like to ask my colleagues. Does anybody remember

what we did to the Indians in America? Does anybody ever remember what we did when whole armies of our soldiers went in and

wiped out Indian villages and killed women and children, massacred them? There is nothing about that in here. Was that a genocide? That is part of our history.

10

We do not hear the Turks saying ‘‘hey, why don’t you guys, before you start questioning us, pay a little attention to your own history?’’ That is something I think we should take a hard look at. If

you are going to cast stones, get the mote out of your eye first.

Now, there is no question in my mind that atrocities took place

over there, and that is why I complimented the President, which

I do not do very often. I complimented the President about the Armenian Remembrance Day because it does point out that there

were atrocities that took place, but should we single them out 80

some years ago when we have atrocities of our own we have to deal

with, when there are atrocities in Africa going on today, when

there have been atrocities going on all over the world and not one

of them is even mentioned in this resolution?

It should be more broadly based, and it should be fair. Now, if

you come up with a resolution like that that goes after all genocides and mentions this then I think I could support it. But to single them out at the expense of one of our best allies in the world,

I think makes absolutely no sense. It is a mess as far as our foreign policy is concerned. I just do not understand it.

So let me just say, in case you have not figured it out by now,

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this resolution in its present form.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much.

I would like to yield to Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. That will be the final statement by

Members of the panel, and then we will go to our two distinguished

Members who will present testimony.

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the two distinguished Members who will

be testifying for their patience. I do want to respond to the last

statement by Mr. Burton. He asked why do we have to do this after

80 years? Why do we have to recognize this particular genocide?

It was the first genocide of the twentieth century. It was a genocide that Hitler could point to and tell those around him that they

would face no retribution, for the world had forgotten the Armenians, but it is also important that we recognize this genocide precisely because of the denials.

America has made it very clear. Slavery existed here, and it was

cruel. If we endeavor to deny that, it would make us a weaker

country. As the gentleman from Indiana points out, America committed genocide against a number of Native American tribes, quite

a number. If we were to deny that that would make us a weaker

country.

For reasons I have not understood, Turkey believes in denying

the history of its predecessor regime. I do not know why, but I do

know that as long as there are those who try to deny the Armenian

genocide, we have to teach those in our State Department and our

entire country that, yes, it did occur. The historical differences are

only around the margins. Was it exactly how many more than 1

million people were killed because of their ethnicity? Those are details. This was the first genocide of the twentieth century.

Now, Turkey is indeed a NATO ally of the United States, and it

would be a stronger ally if, perhaps prodded by America, it would

acknowledge its own history. How strong an ally would Germany

be if it denied the Holocaust? How strong an ally would Britain be

11

if British children were told that its colonial past was nothing but

sugar and spice and that all of the nations that Britain ruled were

treated always with kindness, generosity and were happy to be

ruled as part of a colonial empire?

Of all of our NATO allies, only one insists upon denying its past.

Let us help Turkey recognize that past, and let’s make sure that

those who deny it are defeated by the truth.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Sherman.

Let me go now to our very distinguished panel, first with Congressman Jim Rogan who is a representative for the 27th District

of California. He is a Member of the House Judiciary Committee

and the Assistant Majority Whip here in the House, and then

David Bonior, who, as Mr. Radanovich pointed out, is the principal

co-sponsor of the pending resolution, H. Res. 398. He is a representative from the 10th District of Michigan and the Democratic

Whip. We are very happy to have both of you gentlemen here.

Mr. Rogan, if you would begin?

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES E. ROGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank you for scheduling this very important hearing today and for giving me the opportunity to come and address this Subcommittee on an issue of

great importance to history, but also of great importance to justice.

I want to especially acknowledge and thank my colleague from

California, Mr. Radanovich, for his steadfast and unending leadership in the Armenian caucus and on this issue in particular.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution is supported by a bipartisan coalition of over 130 of our colleagues who call upon our body, the U.S.

House of Representatives, to recognize what was in fact the first

genocide of the twentieth century.

As has been noted in previous comments, when Adolf Hitler prepared to embark upon a horrible Holocaust against the Jews, he

scoffed at the notion that the world would rebel in revulsion. His

response was, ‘‘Who remembers the Armenians?’’

Regrettably, in some of our current governmental circles that

question could well be asked today. Acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide is not just an Armenian issue. Mr. Chairman, it is

a moral issue, and our body, the House of Representatives, should

be on the right side of it.

This resolution is not ‘‘anti’’ any other nation, especially a steadfast ally of the United States. It was not crafted as a punitive

measure. Rather, it was drafted as an integrity measure. It simply

calls on our government to acknowledge the atrocities committed

against the Armenian people between 1915 and 1923 and calls for

our State Department to have its representatives educated in the

same.

In the years during and immediately after the First World War,

over 1.5 million Armenians were displaced, deported, tortured and

killed at the hands of some associated with the Ottoman Empire.

Families that had inhabited their sacred land since the time of

Christ were wiped from the face of the earth. Their homes were deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
12

stroyed. A generation of Armenians watched relatives be taken

away from their villages, never to return.

Our colleagues who have joined me as members of the Armenian

caucus are not alone in fighting for this resolution. During the thirtieth anniversary of the Scholars Conference on the Holocaust and

the Churches held earlier this year, Holocaust survivors publicly

called upon the west to affirm and recognize the Armenian atrocities that took place.

In working to recognize the Armenian genocide, a point needs to

be reemphasized. We do not seek this action to point any finger of

blame, nor do we seek to legislate history. Our intention is merely

to recognize this tragedy occurred and publicly affirm its affect on

humanity.

It is time for the House of Representatives to answer Adolf Hitler’s question of half a century ago—who remembers the Armenians? America does, and our nation will never again turn a blind

eye to horror and pretend out of geopolitical convenience that

crimes against humanity did not occur.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank also our distinguished colleague

and friend, the gentleman from Michigan, for joining me here on

the panel today. I thank each of the Members of this Committee

for their consideration and for the passion that they bring to this

issue, and I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Representative Rogan appears in the

appendix.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Mr. Rogan, and

thank you for the very significant push that you gave to bringing

this resolution to the fore. It will be, as I said earlier, marked up

we hope on September 20, Wednesday of next week, and for your

considerable work that you did to make this hearing possible.

I also want to thank Mr. Bonior in advance for his leadership.

This is a bipartisan resolution, and I would like to yield to my good

friend from Michigan.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID E. BONIOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. BONIOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we are thanking

each other, let me thank you for your steadfastness not only on

this, but for what I consider quite a magnificent record your whole

career here on human rights issues. You have really stood out on

virtually everything that we have had before us that has touched

on human rights in this Congress and in previous Congresses, and

I thank you for it.

To you, Ms. McKinney, a wonderful statement by Mr. Sherman

and the other Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for

conducting this hearing today on a bipartisan legislation that was

introduced by Representative Radanovich, who has been steadfast

and dogged in his determination on this, and me, to recognize the

Armenian genocide.

Representative Radanovich and I have worked closely together

on this resolution since 1995. My personal involvement with this

resolution began in 1987 when I managed the rule for the debate

in the House of Representatives on the resolution.

13

Mr. Chairman, as a student of history, I have always been outraged that this terrible tragedy was not recognized appropriately

by the Congress. Only once, in 1996, over the past few decades has

the House even indirectly affirmed this recognition. It is time to

bring this resolution to the floor of the House, and I am glad to

hear of the commitment to do that this afternoon.

Those who deny the Armenian genocide its proper recognition ignore the substantial body of evidence which exists in the United

States and internationally. The facts are very, very clear. Beginning on the night of April 24, 1915, the religious and intellectual

leaders of the Armenian community of Constantinople were taken

from their beds, imprisoned, tortured and killed.

In the days that followed, the remaining males over the age of

15 were gathered in cities and villages and towns throughout the

Ottoman Empire, Ottoman, Turkey, roped together, marched to

nearby uninhabited areas and killed. Innocent women and children

were forced to march through barren wastelands, urged on by

whips and clubs, and denied food and water. When they dared to

step out of line, they were repeatedly attacked, robbed, raped and

ultimately killed. When all was said and done, 1.5 million Armenians lay dead, and a homeland which stood for 3,000 years was

nearly completely depopulated.

I believe that those of us who stand for human rights have a responsibility to remember the victims and the survivors. We have a

responsibility to speak out and to make sure that tragedies like

this are never allowed to happen again.

As I mentioned, Representative Radanovich and I have introduced a resolution, H. Res. 398, sponsored by more than 130 Members of Congress to respond to the issue of genocide and to confirm

statements of fact on the Armenian genocide. For much of the

twentieth century, the world did not seem to learn the lessons of

the past. We must pause today and again say never again.

We cannot forget that in 1939, another leader used the Armenian

genocide as justification for his own sick actions. This leader said,

and we have heard this quote, and I do not think we can hear it

enough, but I will repeat it again. ‘‘I have given orders to my death

units to exterminate without mercy or pity the men, women and

children belonging to the Polish speaking race. After all,’’ Adolf Hitler asked, ‘‘who today remembers the extermination of the Armenians?’’

Mr. Chairman, it is up to all of us to remember. For centuries

the Armenian people have shown great courage and strength. The

least we can do is match their courage with our commitment because in the end we are their voice, and we must do all that we

can to remember. If we do not, nobody else will.

Mr. Chairman, some may say that this resolution will alter our

relationship with Turkey, and I agree. It will. It might give the

Turkish Government an opportunity to join with us in acknowledging the Armenian genocide. Such an acknowledgement will help

open the door to improved relations in the region. We have learned

from ethnic conflicts around the world that differences are hard to

set aside until history, no matter how tragic, is acknowledged. Only

then can the healing process begin.

14

This Subcommittee and the House should follow the examples of

Elie Wiesel, the noted Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust

survivor who said this about the Armenian genocide: ‘‘The Turks

should have understood the pain and the anger of the Armenians,

who are denied the right to remember. The Turks today are not responsible for the bloody events that took place 50 years earlier, but

they are responsible for their present attitudes regarding these

events.’’ Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 398 is our opportunity in the

Congress to confirm the historical record. This is about human

rights. It is also about historical fact. As we enter this new millennium, we cannot allow these tragic events to be erased from our

memory.

I am pleased to be joined with my colleague, Mr. Rogan, and appreciate his statement, and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if it is possible now to show a very short film that I have—it is about 21⁄2

minutes—for our edification?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Without a doubt, Mr. Bonior. We are

happy to see the film.

Mr. BONIOR. Thank you.

[Videotape shown.]

[The prepared statement of Representative Bonior appears in the

appendix.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Bonior, thank you for your testimony, and thank you for providing the Subcommittee that very

moving and compelling videotape. Let me just ask a couple of questions and then yield to my colleagues for any questions they may

have.

Earlier in some of the opening statements there was some talk

about what does genocide actually mean, and I think it is worth

noting at the beginning of this hearing that the Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which entered into force on January 12, 1951, Article 2 makes it very clear:

In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed

with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious

group as such, (A) killing members of the group; (B) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (C) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions

of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (D) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and, (E) forcibly

transferring children of the group to another group.

It goes on from there, but that is the basic essence of what genocide means, and it baffles me, frankly, why we are so reluctant to

brand this wholesale slaughter of a people a genocide.

The point was made earlier that Turkey has never flinched in its

commitment to NATO. Nor has West Germany or now a unified

Germany either, but they had the decency, Konrad Adenauer and

others, to come forward and lay it bare, and we all remember what

Eisenhower said—rather than torching the terrible death camps

used in the Holocaust, preserve them because people will in the

end say it did not happen, or will try to deny the severity and the

egregious nature of the killing.

Now we have film. There is an enormous amount of evidence. I

have read then a number of times, but I recently reread the statements by Ambassador Morgenthau. If you read the statements of

our Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, virtually

15

every one of those aspects of genocide are fulfilled. So I would like

to ask our two distinguished Members: Why this denial, and why

are we so concerned?

I mean, I do want, as we all do, Turkey to remain a good,

staunch ally. But remembering the past hopefully prevents abuses

in the future. And this is an important matter for the people who

have suffered so much, namely the Armenians, to have an official

acknowledgement of this terrible thing.

Mr. Bonior. Mr. Rogan.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, the right of a people to remember

their past is fundamental to recognizing that very people, and to

deny a people that basic right of your past is to create enormous

problems in international relations for future endeavors.

That is in many ways part of the problem that Mr. Sherman referred to in his comments or someone did up there—I do not know

exactly who it was—with respect to moving beyond some of these

issues that we are now bogged down on in Azerbaijan and

Nagorno-Karabakh and with the pipeline and all the things that I

think Dan Burton related to. We have to get beyond that, and the

way you get beyond it is by recognizing the sins of the past.

Mr. Sherman I think eloquently stated that we have done that.

The Germans have lived up or owned up to their atrocities. In our

own country with respect to Japanese Americans, we took 120,000

of them out of their homes, out of their businesses, and relocated

them. We have admitted as a government that that was the wrong

thing to do, and we have compensated them for that.

The Turks need to get beyond this. It was not their government

that did it. It was, as we clearly stated or as I mentioned in my

statement that Elie Wiesel mentioned, it was their predecessors.

They have to face up to this.

Why do we not face up to it as a government ourselves? I guess

you would have to ask the State Department, who will testify next,

but clearly the concerns that were raised by Mr. Burton and Mr.

Faleomavaega and others with respect to our relationships with

Turkey as an ally are at the forefront of our unwillingness to deal

with this question.

That inability hampers us in resolving other problems, whether

it is Cyprus, whether it is Nagorno-Karabakh whether it is other

concerns in the regions, and it is just an important step to overcome. It is the same step that the Argentinians have to overcome

in their historical route to try and reconcile.

The Chileans are going through the same thing today. I mean,

it is something that nations have to go through, and Turkey has

been unwilling to do it. I hope that this resolution will help them

get there.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Rogan.

Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I think you have answered your own

question. Who among us would want to look at films such as what

we have just seen and have to know that our ancestors were responsible for that?

Mr. Burton and others are correct in outlining throughout our

history the horrible and egregious mistakes that our forefathers

made in many areas of human rights. We would love to be able to

16

erase that past, but we cannot. We must live with it, however uncomfortably.

To deny the existence of our past would not just affect us from

a historical perspective. It would affect us from a moral perspective. How other nations decide to deal with their past we cannot

legislate from the House of Representatives, but we can go on

record for ourselves and for our country in deciding whether we are

going to stand on the right of moral correctness.

Who among our predecessors in the Congress 50 years ago,

would today be proud to be on record saying back then that the

Jewish Holocaust had never happened?

I do not want to see us today be viewed in that capacity in the

future. We have an opportunity in this Congress to make a simple

statement, a moral statement that this atrocity occurred, that our

government recognizes it occurred, and we are not going to pretend

it did not occur for geopolitical considerations.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. In the interest of time, I will forego

additional questions and ask my fellow panelists if they could at

least limit their questions for interests of so we can get to the State

Department and our remaining witnesses.

I would like to yield to Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think we as a nation are not proud, but ashamed

of slavery, the genocide of many Native American groups, etc., but

we can be proud as Americans that we are now part of a country

that acknowledges that.

I know that the Turkish Government has sought to deny this

genocide. They might in future generations find pride that the

Turkish people had reached a point where they could acknowledge

their past.

That tape, Mr. Bonior, was very good, and I am glad you brought

it to our attention. I also want to praise, for those who are looking

for more of the work done by a constituent of mine, Mr. Gopian,

who has put together extensive documentary footage of the survivors of this genocide. That has been funded in part by the California legislature.

I do want to point out, and it concerns me as to why Turkey resists this acknowledgement. When the Holocaust was plotted by

Germany, Germany was at the height of its power. When America

committed its sins in slavery and the treatment of the Native

Americans, we were powerful and well organized. When Britain

and France launched wars of aggression and imperialism, they

were at the height of their power.

That tape brought to mind the fact that this genocide occurred

at a time when the Turkish Government was in disarray, chaos

and when there was realistic plans by then enemies of Turkey to

seize virtually all of its territory or all of it and colonize it, and so

one would expect that extremists might take power and might use

the instrumentalities of a decaying government to commit genocide

at such a time. It is a little bit less to admit the genocide occurred

a time of chaos than to admit these other things that I mentioned

that occurred when nations were powerful.

The two panelists are advocates of this bill and appear before us

in that capacity. We have 2 to 3 more weeks of legislative session.

Are you here strongly arguing that we take this matter up and get

17

it to the floor this session, and, if so, do you have a strong preference as to whether it comes up under a suspension of the rules

or in regular order?

Mr. BONIOR. If I might, Jim, having gone through this before in

1987, I do not want it to come up on suspension of the rules. This

will be a tough, tough battle, and I know that, but I have heard

some eloquent statements from Mr. Royce today and, of course, always Mr. Radanovich and others, so I would hope this would be

brought up in regular order.

It is my understanding from what you said, Mr. Chairman, that

the Speaker has indicated he will bring it up, and I think it will

be wonderful. It will be wonderful to have this debate and to have

this on the floor of the House of Representatives so that the world,

no matter what happens on the vote, can learn more about this unconscionable tragedy.

Mr. ROGAN. I echo those sentiments. I feel the same way.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to recognize Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. SHERMAN. Do I still have another minute?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. OK.

Mr. SHERMAN. OK. The genocide denial is the last step of a genocide. After killing people, it kills the memory of the killing, and

that is why this resolution is so important, and that is why I praise

those who are the authors of the resolution.

Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say, and I will not take the full 5 minutes, that I do not think anyone who watches what we saw in the

Peter Jennings report can feel anything but empathy and sympathy and a great deal of sorrow for what happened, and I believe

those tragedies did happen.

Fifty million people were killed by Joseph Stalin in forced starvation in the Soviet Union. I do not remember a resolution in the 18

years I have been here on Russia. Mao Tse Tung and the Red Brigade killed 50 million people in China. Fifty million. Fifty million

in Russia and in China. I do not remember any resolution. I do not

remember any special training that we advocated for the State Department to train people on how to deal with those kinds of human

rights atrocities.

I talked about the American Indians, and we have heard about

the African-Americans who were victimized here. You can go into

what is going on today in Africa. Do not misunderstand. I have

been on the Human Rights Subcommittee for a long time, and I

have shared with the Committee chairman here a great deal of concern about places like Kashmir and Punjab and India and all over

the place, so I do feel empathy and sympathy and sorrow for what

happened, and I do not doubt that a lot of that did happen, but 3

million Turks died as well during this tragic time. There were

forced marches for them as well. I do not know if we have any movies of them, but that happened as well.

So what I said earlier I stand by, and that is we should have a

resolution of this type, but it should be broader based than just the

Armenian genocide. We have a remembrance day every year to remember those who tied in the tragedy in 1915 to 1921 or whenever

it was—I do not remember the exact dates—but the fact is we do

18

have a remembrance day. America has not forgotten. The world

has not forgotten.

If we are going to go down this path of pointing out genocides

then let us not focus it so narrowly on one genocide if that is what

you want to call it. Let us look at all of them. Let us put them all

in a resolution and let the world see that all of these things should

stop, not just one.

Remember, 50 million people died in forced starvation and famine under Stalin. Mao Tse Tung killed 50 million in his country.

I mean, it has gone on throughout history. When you have wars,

you have atrocities. We had My Lai. Remember that? We had all

these things.

You know, I do not want you to think I am unsympathetic about

what the Armenians went through. I am very sympathetic, but I

think we need to look at this in a broader—with a broader view.

If we are going to talk about genocide, let us talk about genocide.

Let us condemn it. Let us have the State Department be sensitized

to all the genocides so that every aspect of genocide can be remembered and stopped in the future so mankind will never forget, but

let us just do not remember one thing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield briefly?

Mr. BURTON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. As Chairman of the Subcommittee, it

just bears noting that this Subcommittee, as well as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I also chair, has

had in excess of 100 hearings on human rights issues around the

world.

We have had them obviously on Serbia, on Milosevic, on forced

abortion and religious persecution in China. We have had them on

Sudan. We have had several hearings on the Sudan, as a matter

of fact.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. On Rwanda, on victims all over the

world. This is our first hearing on this genocide that took place 85

years ago or so, and it seems to me that we would be remiss, and

we have had legislation passed on a myriad of human rights abuses

around the world.

The State Department reauthorization bill, both the last Congress and this, had several pieces of language that I offered condemning certain problems around the world, and I just say this as

a matter to give some balance. We are not singling out this issue.

We have had hearings on present day Turkey and the use of torture in Turkey as a matter of repression, so we have tried——

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey [continuing]. To be very fair.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I think it is important to point that

out.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just respond by saying I admire you, and

you know that, and I have been with you on almost everything

since we have been on this Committee together, but this is the first

time that I recall where we have singled out one particular genocide, if you want to call it that, and asked our State Department

19

and Foreign Service officers to be sensitized to what happened in

this specific event.

We have had a lot of them, thousands of them around the world,

and I think if we are going to say the State Department should be

trained in this particular area, they should be regarding all of the

other atrocities, and that is why I said if this is broader based I

will support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Nothing precludes that, but let me just

say this was the first in this century, and it really did, as emphasized by the often quoted statement by Adolf Hitler, leave an opening for those who would commit such atrocities later. Because

somehow they felt the world would not stand up and would take

notice, and there would be no reprisals against the perpetrators.

Mr. BURTON. I understand that Hitler used this as an example,

Mr. Chairman, but let me end up by saying this. If you are going

to go back 80 some years, let us go back to what we did to the Indians because if you want to see pictures and reports on that, just

go back.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may? We would be open, and I cannot

speak for Mr. Bonior, but in discussions before the markup we

would be open to including other groups.

Mr. BURTON. Then let us work together to see if we cannot work

that out.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would be happy to.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you.

Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, may I just comment for a

moment—— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sure, Mr. Rogan.

Mr. ROGAN [continuing]. If that is within the Committee’s protocol?

There is one distinguishing difference between what happened

with Stalin’s Russia, and Mao’s China, and America’s slavery and

Indian issue. The government of the United States and the House

of Representatives does not deny that those things have occurred,

but, as Chairman Smith said so eloquently in his opening statement, there has been a conspiracy of silence not just on the part

of Turkey, but on the part of our own policymakers to the Armenian Genocide. That is the purpose of this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Rogan.

Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to listen and

learn, and from what I have gathered thus far, and I think this is

the first time in my 3 years of Congress I believe that I agree with

Mr. Burton.

I think that we have to be more inclusive. We have to condemn

genocide wherever we find it. As I sit here as an African-American

knowing what happened, and individuals are saying we have acknowledged what happened to African-Americans and Native

Americans. I know on the floor of the House not too long ago there

was a bill asking the U.S. Congress to apologize—simply to apologize—to African-Americans for what happened to them, and the

only co-sponsors on that bill were Members of the congressional

black caucus basically. No one else seemed to want to step up and

acknowledge what in fact did happen here.

20

We have to stop genocide wherever we find it. We have to stop

genocide. I think that it would be a much stronger message going

out if in fact we do that, if we do work together, so that we can

make sure that the message is strong saying that wherever we find

it, whether it is in Europe, in Asia, in Africa or here on the shores

of North America, we will not accept genocide. We can show a great

example in this country by leading the way, by first acknowledging

that there was in fact slavery on the floor of the House of Representatives, something that we do have control over. That would

be to me the first example, which we have failed to do.

We, and I believe that we must and the Armenian people must

within their confines have Turkey acknowledge the wrong that

they have done as far as the genocide is concerned. However, this

is the House of the U.S. Government, and I question even some of

the time because I think that what we should be doing is trying

to make sure that we act in a manner to create an atmosphere so

that genocide could never happen again and hostilities will end.

That matter and I think the timing of all this—as we know,

there are delicate negotiations that are ongoing now. We do not

want to tip the bow because we do not want any violence any place

else and have an outbreak again. I think our role should be that

of a mediator.

If we are going to talk about genocide, let us be broad. Let us

condemn it wherever we find it. Let us go back throughout the history. Point it out so that no one will ever forget the atrocities that

took place to people so it will never happen again in the future.

But let us not do this, which seems to me that we are just picking

a particular incident, as opposed to one another at a crucial time

of negotiation that is going on to try to make a region safer and

better for everyone that lives there.

I yield back.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to

point out for the record on this issue of whether or not we have

condemned genocide elsewhere, very recently working with you,

Mr. Chairman, we on the Africa Subcommittee, which I chair,

passed a resolution. This House passed a resolution condemning

the genocide that occurred in Sudan, recognizing the 2 million people who had perished in the genocide in Sudan, so in point of fact

we do take a stand in the Congress on issues like this, and I think

it is time we set the historical record straight on what happened

in the Armenian genocide.

Let me say it is true that we did not add language that would

indicate that the State Department should be directed to teach

about human rights and ethnic cleansing, but from what I have

seen going on in the world in places like Rwanda, it is pretty clear

to me that we should have. I think it is about time we did direct

the Foreign Service to have some sensitivity to this issue.

This is very appropriate legislation, and I just for the record

want to point out that we have in fact in this Congress passed a

resolution condemning genocide in the Sudan, and so I do not think

there is anything out of place in this resolution.

21

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Bonior, you wanted to respond?

Mr. BONIOR. Yes. I would like to respond by saying that I would

be happy to join Mr. Meeks and others on this panel to author legislation that deal with some of these other issues. We have done

some of them, as Mr. Royce has said.

I am actually a sponsor of the apology that you referred to, Greg,

but let us be clear. There are many other nations that have adopted a similar resolution on the Armenian genocide. We will be in the

latter half of those who have, you know, the bottom part of the list

that have not, so this has been addressed before by parliaments,

and they have looked at it, and it was very clear to many of these

parliaments what we saw in the film just a while ago, and they

have decided to take the position that we are advocating that we

take.

So I hope people will come forward and step forward on this

genocide, and we will be happy to work with people on other issues,

whether it is Rwanda or it is Cambodia—we have spoken on Cambodia as well in this Congress—or other places.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Any other Members of the panel like

to pose a question to our colleagues?

Mr. Tancredo. No?

Unless you have any further concluding comments, I want to

thank our very distinguished Members for being here and providing very keen insights to the Subcommittee as we move to

markup next week. Thank you.

Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you once again.

Mr. BONIOR. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like invite our second witness

to the witness table, Ambassador Marc Grossman, who is the Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the U.S. Department of State.

In his previous diplomatic service, he also served as Assistant

Secretary of State for European Affairs, the United States Ambassador to Turkey, and the Special Assistant to the Secretary of

State.

Ambassador Grossman is a graduate of the University of California-Santa Barbara and the London School of Economics. Mr.

Ambassador, thank you for being here.

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MARC GROSSMAN, DIRECTOR

GENERAL OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

STATE

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much,

and thank you for that introduction. It is a pleasure to be here

today, especially to work again with you and Members of this Subcommittee. I appreciate the chance to have a chance to come and

talk about this resolution and this legislation with you.

Mr. Chairman, if I might say first I have had the good fortune

here over the last couple of hours to listen to all the testimony, and

I really want to say two things before I start.

The first is that over the past several years one of the things

that has really come to my good fortune has been to be able to

22

work with and know many, many of the Armenian-Americans, especially those who are represented here today, and that has been

to my great benefit and something that I am very, very thankful

for.

That allows me to say, second, that I certainly understand the

spirit of this resolution. I understand why people are in favor of

this legislation, and I would join with Mr. Burton in saying that

I think it is exactly right for President Clinton, as he did on the

24th of April of this year, to say, and I think it is worth quoting,

that ‘‘I join Armenians around the world, including ArmenianAmericans, in mourning the loss of innocent life. I also extend my

sympathies to the survivors and their descendants for the hardships that they have suffered.’’ I think as Mr. Burton said, anyone

who watched this video would have exactly this same human and

sympathetic response.

Mr. Chairman, it is my job today to give you my perspective and

the perspective of the Administration on this legislation. As you

know from the letters that Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations Barbara Larkin, who I am very glad is here

with me today, sent to you last June and to the House, to the

International Relations Committee Chairman and to the Ranking

Member, the Administration opposes this resolution, just as previous Administrations, Republican and Democrat, have opposed

this legislation in the past.

We do this, Mr. Chairman, not out of any lack of sympathy, but

because we believe, as President Clinton told Turkish President

Sezer in their meeting last week in New York, that we oppose this

resolution because he, the President, believes it would be counterproductive, and that is because the Administration believes that

passage of H. Res. 398 would not ease our efforts to accomplish our

tasks, as many of the Members of the Subcommittee were saying,

but would actually make it much more complicated, more complicated in the Caucasus, more complicated to bring peace in

Nagorno-Karabakh and I believe also that passage of this legislation would seriously harm U.S. interests in Turkey.

As you were nice enough to say, Mr. Chairman, I have recently

become the Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of

Human Resources at the State Department, but I did have previous service in Turkey and as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs.

I have long valued my relationship with this Subcommittee, and

I would like to give you my perspective on this legislation from that

view, if that might be possible, because I think my experience in

those jobs have given me some perspective on Turkey and on the

region.

Let me, first of all, start with the question of our regional interests. I have five things I would like to try to convey today. First,

the United States is actively engaged in efforts to bring a resolution to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, something that you and

the Members have already discussed today. This peace process received a boost last year when the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan began a direct dialogue. The two Presidents have made

progress toward resolving the conflict.

23

With the active encouragement of the United States, a policy of

the President and the Administration and the Congress as well, we

have encouraged the two Presidents to continue their talks, most

recently on August 19 at Yalta and on September 7 in New York.

For our part, we have taken action as one of the co-chairs of the

Minsk Group to involve key international agencies like the World

Bank and UNHCR so that when there is a peace settlement, reconstruction and resettlement would follow immediately.

As your Members have said, Mr. Chairman, Turkey has a very

important role to play in this process, and we want to do everything that we can to encourage Turkey and Armenia to normalize

their relations. That is a goal we strongly support. In my view, and

I give you my perspective, adoption of this resolution would undermine our efforts to put an end to strife that has plagued this volatile region and ensure future stability and prosperity.

Second, as many of the Members here have talked about, we

have a security relationship with Turkey that is good for the

United States. It is good for America because it supports our interest in the area. As a number of Members have said, Turkey supported the United States in NATO throughout the Cold War. The

United States and Turkish forces have worked together everywhere

from Korea to Kosovo, including Desert Shield. Turkey was at the

forefront of NATO’s operation in Kosovo, and Turkey has now deployed almost 2,000 troops in Bosnia as part of IFOR, KFOR, and

SFOR.

Third, Turkey has been a base since 1991 to United States and

British aircraft that patrol the no fly zone over northern Iraq. Together we contain the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to our

shared interests, and we ensure together that Baghdad cannot

again employ its air assets against innocent civilian populations in

northern Iraq.

Fourth, as one of your Members said, I think the gentleman from

Samoa, Turkey is key to our efforts to encourage the parties to the

Cyprus conflict to engage sensibly in the U.N. sponsored proximity

talks that resumed just this week in New York.

Fifth, Mr. Chairman, in the Middle East you and I have talked

about Turkey’s relationship with Israel and the Palestinians, and

they have actively supported our mediation efforts before and since

Camp David.

So we have these five very important regional security interests,

but we have economic interests in Turkey as well. As your Members have said, a critical partner in bringing central Asian energy

resources to an energy hungry world, Turkey is one of the Commerce Department’s leading emerging markets for United States

exports. Turkey spends $6 billion on American goods and services

in sectors like agriculture, aerospace, energy and defense.

Mr. Chairman, you very I think rightly mentioned in one of your

followup statements the whole question of United States interests

in Turkey and United States interests in human rights in Turkey.

Since you and I have talked about this a lot, may I say a word

about that as well?

I do not want to finish this review of what it is that the United

States finds important in Turkey without a word about human

rights. I think Turks know that they have much more to do in this

24

area, and certainly as President Clinton noted in his address before

the Turkish National Assembly last November, Turkey is making

progress, but, as the President would say, there is still a long way

to go.

As in many of these areas, Mr. Chairman, and you and I have

talked about this a fair amount, we continue to believe that the

best way to seek more progress on human rights in Turkey is to

engage the Turkish public, to engage the Turkish Government, to

engage Turkish society. So I worry, I really worry, that the passage

of this resolution would diminish our standing in Turkey, make it

harder for people to listen to our arguments and, therefore, set

back our efforts.

I have talked a little bit in this statement so far about the impact of the resolution on Turkey. Let me talk for a moment, if you

would allow me, about Armenia. Mr. Chairman, the Administration

is committed to helping the Armenian people build a secure, democratic and prosperous nation, fully integrated into the region, into

international processes and international institutions, and we

think that a lasting peace in the Caucasus and economic cooperation, for example, in the pipeline that will bring oil and gas from

the Caucasus with all of the neighbors is essential if Armenian is

to achieve the prosperity that its people deserve.

Mr. Chairman, let us talk about the main issue here, what it is

that we are talking about historically. It seems to me utterly, totally and completely indisputable that the Armenian people suffered deportations and massacres, but scholars disagree on the nature of the killings and the root causes. As some of your Members

have said, many, many Turks and Kurds died as well.

I think this issue should really be in the hands of scholars and

historians. I know you will have a panel of them after you are done

listening to me, but I think that peace and stability in the region

will require Turkey and Armenia, as well as those members of the

Armenian diaspora, to jointly—jointly—understand the events of

the past, and that is why I have so strongly supported recent work

to bring Armenian and Turkish experts together with academics

from other countries to explore their common history. There are

people in this room who have helped us do that. We have been

grateful for that, and we need to do more of it.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, as I was thinking about this statement

and how it would seem to you, let me just say that I think in the

end that this is not something that can be legislated or can be

mandated. Rather, people dealing with history, no matter whose

history, is something that has to be done by diplomats, by people

to people exchanges, and by Members of this body, all aimed at

promoting dialogue and reconciliation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, one sentence about the training of diplomats since that is really part and parcel of this resolution. One

of the things I did when I read the resolution was ask: Do we do

any of this training? Does anyone at the Foreign Service Institute

or the National Foreign Affairs Training Center look into these

subjects, because if we do not, we should.

Let me give you a report, Mr. Chairman, on what I found. We

have a responsibility to acknowledge the tragedy that occurred and

to study its origins and its consequences. In a way, I think we

25

ought to study this terrible period of history as diplomats, as legislators, really as human beings, no matter what label scholars give

it.

It turns out that our diplomats are already exposed very systematically to the lessons of this terrible time. Here is what we do

right now at the Foreign Service Institute. The massacres of Armenians is covered in the Caucasus advanced area of studies and in

Turkish advanced area of studies courses.

Let me take the Armenian course first. Ambassador Harry Gilmore, who was our distinguished first Ambassador to the Republic

of Armenia, teaches the Caucasus advanced course and covers this

issue in his session on Armenia and Turkey. Indeed, I understand

that Ambassador Gilmore often invites Dr. Reuben Adalian of the

Armenian National Institute to be a speaker to our people at this

session.

The session discusses the historical circumstances of the massacres, their origins, their results and surveys the different views

of historians and others on these events. Ambassador Gilmore

makes reference to the massacres in other lectures during this

course and indeed is currently updating the entire reader syllabus

for this particular course at the Foreign Service Institute.

On the Turkish side, Dr. Sabri Siari, who is the Executive Director of the Institute of Turkish Studies and a professor at Georgetown University, teaches the Turkish advanced area studies, and

he also addresses this issue squarely, discusses the massacres as

part of a session devoted to Turkish history at the time of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of nationalism.

Mr. Chairman, as Members of the Committee have I think very

accurately said, President Clinton has kept the tradition of commemorating Armenian Remembrance Day each April 24 because

we must guard against the nightmare that such horrors could be

repeated.

Our human rights training, our training at the Foreign Service

Institute and really our work for democracy and freedom overseas

has that as a key goal. Study of these events will surely lead to

the conclusion that the best tribute we can offer to the victims of

tragedies is to build peace and stability in the region so that we

can truly say never again.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chance to make that statement.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Grossman appears in

the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Grossman, thank you for your

statement. As you can probably tell by the bells, the conference report on the legislative branch appropriations is on the floor right

now with about 9 minutes remaining, so I will suspend the proceedings just for a couple of minutes. We will return and then go

to questions.

Thank you for your patience.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Sure. Thanks a lot.

[Recess.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The Subcommittee will resume its sitting. I apologize for the inconvenience to witnesses and to those attending the hearing.

26

Mr. Ambassador, thank you again for your patience. Let me

begin with a few opening comments and then ask you a question.

The Subcommittee has received a letter from Nobel Peace Prize

winner Elie Wiesel urging the passage of H. Res. 398. He states

that it is crucial that the President provide appropriate materials

and training for all foreign service officers, U.S. Department of

State officials and any executive branch employees involved with

issues of human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Second, we have a letter addressed once again to the Subcommittee by Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, a distinguished academician

who successfully secured a libel judgment against Holocaust denier

David Ervin, who states in her letter of support for adoption of this

resolution, ‘‘Denial of genocide, whether that of the Turks against

the Armenians or the Nazis against the Jews, is not an act of historical reinterpretation. Rather, the denier’s sow confusion by appearing to be engaged in a genuine scholarly effort.’’ Finally, I share with you the public appeal of 126 Holocaust Judaic and legal scholars that affirm, ‘‘The incontestable fact of the

Armenian genocide and urge western democracies to officially recognize it.’’ I assume you and the entire department share my view that

these scholars of the Holocaust and genocide are worth listening to

on a question of the definition of genocide, and I was wondering if

you could tell us do you agree with their judgment? A simple yes

or no.

Are we talking about genocide as defined in the convention?

Sometimes there has been this reluctance to pronounce the G word,

genocide. Are we talking about genocide when it comes to the Armenian situation?

Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say

that of course we would take seriously the views of the people

whose names you read. I mean, how could anyone not take seriously the words of a Nobel Prize winner like Elie Wiesel? Of course

we do.

The second thing is that the point you make in your statement

is a very important one. You are asking for us to do some training.

You are asking for us to train, as you said, all Foreign Service officers, people who serve overseas, all members of the State Department and, very properly so, all of those people who serve overseas

for the U.S. Government.

At the end of my testimony, Mr. Chairman, I tried to give you

a report on what it is that we do now. Maybe we do not do enough.

Maybe we ought to talk to more people. Maybe our civil service colleagues at the State Department ought to get this training, too, but

I think it is really very important that we do recognize that the advantages of this legislation already exist, in other words training,

already exists.

That is why Ambassador Gilmore worked so hard in the

Caucasus area to teach about these terrible tragedies to people who

are going to Armenia, and that is why in Turkish area studies Dr.

Siari does the very same.

Expand it. Contract it. Do more people. Do less people, absolutely. But I do not want to leave you thinking that we are not

27

doing this at all, so in a sense we have some of the advantages of

this legislation already taking place. What I tried to do is give you

my perspective on the disadvantage.

Mr. Chairman, you asked me for a yes or no answer. You know

me well enough to know that I am not going to give you one because I really cannot, and that is to say that I do not consider myself to be the ‘‘grand judger’’ of all of history.

I have come to two conclusions, as I say, in thinking a lot about

this question. One, we ought to listen to the historical debate, and

you are going to have one after me, but, two, and I believe this ever

more strongly, Mr. Chairman. I actually think that this issue does

not really belong to you or to me or to these scholars any more. It

actually belongs to Turkish people and Armenian people, and we

ought to be doing all that we can, as we have from the department

and as I know you have and Members of Congress, in bringing

Turkish people and Armenian people together to talk about these

things, to share their history, because that is the way ultimately

there is going to be reconciliation.

I know that is not the greatest answer you have ever heard from

a witness. It is too long, but I thought a lot about this, and I think

that is really what we ought to be doing.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would strongly disagree with you

that we should leave this issue exclusively to the Turkish and the

Armenian people. I mean, that is why we have a Country Report

on Human Rights Practices.

That is why when we fought so diligently to have enacted the Religious Freedom Act, which initially at least was opposed by many

in the department, including Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

and John Shattuck, then the Assistant Secretary of Human Rights.

They made very clear that they thought it would establish a hierarchy of human rights, which did not happen, will not happen, and

was never intended to happen. That legislation almost died in its

tracks because of opposition by the Administration, yet in a very

bipartisan way we were able to pass it.

Last week we had Ambassador Seiple here who made it very

clear that this has helped him to mainstream religious freedom

issues into the very worthy and laudable work of the State Department. So it seems to me that when we are talking about human

rights past, present, and, regrettably, future it is wrong to shy

away from using the ‘‘G’’ word, the genocide word, when it seems

incontestable, according to the quote I just cited.

As I said earlier to the first panel, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which entered into

force January 12, 1951, by the United Nations and countries simply says, ‘‘Article 2, In the present convention, genocide means any

of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or

in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such,’’ and

then it defines 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, and it goes on.

In reading historical documents after historical documents, which

both you and I and many others have done, I think the conclusion

is inescapable and is not even debatable. That is my opinion, and

28

it is probably not shared by some, but are you in the Department

and the Administration not in the position to call this a genocide?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond. Let

me be just as honest as I can. As I have said, my job here is to

do three things. First, to tell you that we think that this is an issue

that ought to be left to historians. You are going to hear from historians after you listen to me. You can make your own decision. I do

not know. You will have to decide what you want to decide.

The second thing is you asked me here, and I am grateful for the

invitation, to try to give you my perspective on what might happen

if this legislation passed. I tried my very best in my testimony to

do that.

If I could, sir, third, just respond for a moment to the argument

that you and I were having. I do not mean in saying that ultimately the solution to this problem belongs only to Turks and Armenians that we should not have anything to do with it. On the

contrary. I mean, for goodness sakes, we are the people who ought

to be facilitating these contacts, and I certainly do not want to be

put in a position of saying—— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. No.

Ambassador GROSSMAN [continuing]. That there is an exclusivity

here. We ought not to get rid of it. We ought to study these things.

What I was trying to say, Mr. Chairman, perhaps not too well,

was that ultimately the solution to this problem seems to me anyway in getting Armenians and Turks together to share their history. You have to ask yourself and I have to ask myself, and you

will come to one conclusion and I will come to another, in what way

is the best service of creating that shared history?

You would say pass this resolution because it is time that we did

so, and I would argue to you that I think it would actually set us

back, sir.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. You mentioned let historians handle

this. Do you feel likewise with the Holocaust; that that should be

their exclusive domain?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. No.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Why? What is the difference?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. The Holocaust is something that there is

a lot of experience about, that we have lots of positions, we have

positions on it. I think there is a complete difference here.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Other than the number of people

killed and murdered, it seems to me, and again the evidence clearly

shows the effect of the deportation marches, and again, our own

Ambassador Morgenthau pointed it out, particularly in Chapter 24

of his memoirs, ‘‘The Murder of a Nation.’’

Anyone who reads that and any of the other supporting documentation will ask, if this was not a planned genocide that worsened and then resulted in approximately 1.5 million people being

butchered and killed and raped then what was it? I do not even

want to go through the terrible tortures that he outlines in here,

as do others; the beating of the feet, which they call bastinado,

until the feet explode, the horrible pain that is suffered there and

many other terrible tortures, people being hacked to death, starvation. I mean, we should be willing to call a genocide a genocide. I

am just baffled by our inability to do so.

29

I say that with all due respect because I have a very high regard

for you, but let the record show I am truly baffled by our inability

to call this a genocide. If it is all about or partially about or in any

way about our current day diplomacy with the Republic of Turkey,

that would be I think not only shortsighted, but wrong. We should

be willing to say exactly what the truth is and let the consequences

flow.

We have heard, and respond one way or the other to this if you

could, that opponents of this resolution have asserted that its adoption would harm U.S. commercial interests, in particular a pending

$4 billion helicopter deal. One of the international competitors for

the helicopter deal is a Russian-Israeli consortium.

Is it not true that Russia has affirmed the Armenian genocide

and that Israel’s Education Minister, later supported by Israel’s

Justice Minister, supports teaching the Armenian genocide in

Israeli public schools? Has the government of Turkey sanctioned

Russia, the Israelis, Belgium, France or any other firms whose governments have acknowledged in the same fashion the Armenian

genocide, which we are purporting to do with this resolution? If

not, why should we expect them to take action against U.S. firms?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to both of

those questions. First let me talk for a minute about the helicopter

deal. It is something you and I have discussed publicly and in your

office. Where we stand at the moment is the Turks have selected

Bell Textron, an American company, to negotiate a contract with

for the purchase of these helicopters. We are glad of that, and we

want these contract negotiations to go along.

We are not in a position yet of being able to rule one way or another on a license for export because there is no contract yet. As

I have reported to you, if we take that decision or when we take

that decision, because I would like there to be a contract someday,

all of the issues that involve arms sales with the United States, including issues of human rights, will certainly be taken into account.

The second part of your question was about other statements

from other countries and would that have some effect. I admit to

you first off that I do not have the faintest idea about Russian

statements. I had not heard about that, but I do know about some

of the others.

For example, I too read and was very interested to read what the

Israeli Minister of Education had said, but I think it is interesting

and worth pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that right after he said it,

if I can just read here, the Israeli Foreign Minister, David Levy,

immediately stated that the Ministers spoke only for themselves,

and if I could quote, ‘‘Levy reiterated the official Israeli position

that events must be studied and discussed by historians, not politicians and diplomats.’’

So I think like in a lot of countries perhaps there are different

views on this, but I would imagine if I was a Turkish government

official I would be interested in what the Foreign Minister of Israel

had said, which is something more or less along the lines of our

position.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Frankly, I do not think Elie Wiesel

falls into the category of politician or diplomat.

30

Ambassador GROSSMAN. No. No, but you had quoted to me the

Minister of Justice and Minister of Education of Israel.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Right.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I was just trying to respond to you that

they had said that. I do not deny it, but I just wanted to give you

the information that the Foreign Minister of Israel had had a different view and I think speaks for his country.

The answer to your question about whether Turks would sanction Israel I do not think really comes up because the Israel position in this case, Mr. Chairman, is very close to ours.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me just ask you with regard to you

mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh and others. When I offered and was

prime sponsor of the Humanitarian Corridors Act, which in this

room we had a very vigorous debate about. Thankfully it won, although it was vetoed, but did get passed when Congressman Porter

put it onto an appropriations bill, and yet it has been waived, to

the best of my knowledge, each and every year, even though we are

talking about the provision of medicines and other humanitarian

articles that could save suffering people and could extend our ability to help because obviously when you take a more circuitous route

of getting those materials there, the medicines and the food cost

more.

That to me seems to be a profoundly unfair act on the part of

the Turkish Government. It is like if an ambulance comes, you just

look the other way, and you do not allow it to go through your

street. That is what it looks like to me.

I was amazed at the opposition we got from the Administration

on that one as well, although eventually it was signed into law as

part of the appropriations bill, yet it is being waived every year.

You know, you begin to see a pattern. Now we are just talking

about standing up and doing what many other countries have done

and suggesting it is time to just call a genocide a genocide. Again,

the plain meaning of the U.N. convention seems to clearly indicate

that this is nothing other but than a genocide. I am again very disturbed and discouraged by the fact that we are unwilling to call it

that.

Mr. Pallone.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. I have to apologize, Mr. Ambassador. I had an

event with the Prime Minister of India, so I could not come until

now, but I did read your written statement, and my questions are

with regard to your written statement.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Yes, sir?

Mr. PALLONE. I notice that you are very careful in your written

statement not to utter the word genocide. You use the word massacre, things of that nature, and are very careful not to use the

word genocide.

Two questions on that. I mean, first of all, have you been instructed by the Administration specifically not to use that term?

Second, is that a political decision not to use that term?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I am going to try to answer your question the best I can.

Mr. PALLONE. Sure.

31

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I do not think I have been instructed not

to use the word genocide. I think, Mr. Pallone, that I know that

it is the Administration’s policy not to call it genocide and so as an

Administration witness and as a representative of the Administration I follow the lead of the President.

I think, sir, as Mr. Burton did and others on the Committee referred to the President’s statement on the 24th of April, I think

some in this room would say that he was also very careful not to

use the word genocide, so I follow the President there, sir.

Second, in terms of whether it is a political decision, I do not

know. I suppose in it is the sense that it is a decision that was

made by the Administration, and I am a representative of that Administration. I apologize. I know that is not really what you are

looking for.

Mr. PALLONE. No, no. That is fine, but I guess the reason I ask

the second question about the politics is because in your statement

before you get to talk about the genocide or, as you call it, the massacres you go through a litany of several political points about

United States relations with Turkey, Turkish economy trade, military security——

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Right.

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. And all that, and it is hard for me not

to come to the conclusion that the reason why the Administration

and you as the representative are not using the term genocide is

because they are afraid that if they do use it that somehow that

is going to jeopardize our relations with Turkey and is somehow

going to hurt us economically or from a military point of view. It

is not based on the record, but based on the politics. That is what

I am asking.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Fair enough. I mean, one of the things

in trying to respond to Chairman Smith, and when you say not

based on the record, I mean, if you put me in the position of saying

that means that I am not going to make a decision about whether

this was or was not a genocide and I say that it is something you

ought to listen to historians about, yes, that is true. Yes, sir. Absolutely.

Mr. PALLONE. But you see, my problem is that I think that what

you are telling us is the reason the Administration does not use the

term genocide and the reason we should not use the term genocide

by passing this resolution is because you are fearful that it is going

to hurt us economically or militarily.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. No. I am not fearful of that. I want to

be clear about what we are talking about here. I believe that we

have a relationship with Turkey which is good for the United

States and the region. We also have some very important interests

in Turkey and in the way Turkey is going to change, I hope, as Mr.

Smith and I have always worked hard on in terms of human rights.

What I fear, Mr. Pallone, is that if you pass this resolution we

will have none of the advantages, since we are already doing the

training, and we will have all of the disadvantages in the sense

that in the Turkish public, in Turkish economic life, in Turkish security life, the views of the United States will be diminished, and

we will not be able to pursue our interests, sir.

32

Mr. PALLONE. But the problem that I know I have and I know

the Chairman has as well is that what we think we are doing here

today is basically recognizing a historical fact by passing this resolution.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I understand.

Mr. PALLONE. A fact of, you know, insidious, purposeful genocide

and that by our government, our Administration, coming in and

saying well, you cannot do that because that is going to hurt our

relations with Turkey, then the issue of the genocide, the issue of

intentional massacres, the issue, the historical fact of this gross

human rights violation, is then put aside because of economic or

military considerations, and that bothers me.

I am simply asking you if that is what you want us to do. Are

you saying to this Committee look, I know you may want to pass

this because you believe this occurred, but do not do it because it

is going to have negative impact on our foreign policy. Is that not

what you are saying to us?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. That is close. Absolutely.

Mr. PALLONE. OK.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, you see, that is the problem because I do not

think that is what we are supposed to be doing, in other words.

I have a question, Mr. Chairman, but historically everyone

knows that if you deny human rights violations and genocide for

geopolitical diplomatic reasons then it will occur, and you only encourage it.

I mean, I do not think there is anybody who would suggest that

if this Administration, you know, at the time—I guess it was the

Roosevelt Administration during World War II—had intervened

and had spoken out about the Holocaust and demanded that Jews

not be sent to the gas chambers that we would have had a positive

impact on it not happening or not happening as much as it did.

The same is true for Bosnia and so many other cases.

So our problem here is that we just find it a terrible policy for

the Administration to come in here and tell us that; that if we believe that this truly was genocide that we should not recognize it

as a fact because it might harm our relations with Turkey.

I believe the opposite. I do not think any country—you know, I

think the opposite would happen. If we demand action and demand

recognition, then the Turkish Government, like any government

that had to deal with this fact, would ultimately have to deal with

this, and it would be a positive thing.

That is all I am saying. If you would like to react to it, that is

fine. Obviously you do not agree.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Well, I say with all due respect, Mr.

Pallone, I think you have given a very, very eloquent presentation

of why people are interested in passing this resolution.

I have not given as eloquent a response, but I was invited here

to give you my perspective. My perspective is with great, great respect, sir, that we do have a disagreement here because my view

is that if you pass this resolution the consequences actually will be

the opposite of what you want.

You will not make Turkish people any more open to dealing with

their past. You will not make Turkish people any more open to

33

their human rights challenges. You will not make Turkish people

any more interested in helping the United States.

I mean, you are shaking your head—we just are going to disagree with that, and I just—— Mr. PALLONE. And I am going to stop, Mr. Chairman, because I

want to hear the rest of the panel, but I just would say to you in

response to that there is no indication historically, and I do not

care how far back you go, to ancient times, medieval times, modern

times. There is no basis for that.

Every time that a great power has refused to exercise its influence to say to a country that they should not be violating human

rights, all that happens is that it just continues and gets worse.

Every time you stand up and say no, you should not do it and we

know you are doing it and we recognize that you did it, that has

had a positive outcome in the long term.

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your candor,

but I also think that there is just no historical evidence for that.

Thank you.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Ambassador, let me ask one final

question.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Yes, sir?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I am sure you have read Ambassador

Morgenthau’s story and probably read it more than once. Do you

believe it is accurate, his detailed explanations or recounting, his

knowledge as to what happened?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I certainly believe that Ambassador

Morgenthau wrote what he believed, yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Was there anything in the State Department’s records that would contradict any of the information

that we believed to be the truth and reality about the genocide?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I do not know the answer to that question, Mr. Smith. I mean, I should, but I do not.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. OK.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. That is a fair question. I do not know

the answer to it.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If you could get back to us, that would

be very helpful—— Ambassador GROSSMAN. I would be glad to try.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey [continuing]. If there was any kind

of——

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Sure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey [continuing]. Contrarian view within

the department at the time.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Sure.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Based on what I have looked at, I have

not found it, but I have not been able to get into the——

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Fair enough.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey [continuing]. Archives the way you I

am sure can.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I just would ask unanimous consent

for the record to include Chapter 24 into the record, Ambassador

Morgenthau’s story, and the subtitle for that chapter is The MurVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
34

der of a Nation, because certainly it is very, very disturbing reading, as I mentioned earlier before.

As a matter of fact, there were a number of points made that,

for example, before the caravan moved the women were sometimes

offered the alternative of becoming Muslims. Even though they accepted the new faith, which few of them did, their earthly troubles

did not end. The converts were compelled to surrender their children to so-called Muslim orphanages with the agreement that they

should be trained as the doubt followers of the prophet. It goes on

to say that they obviously had to give up their own husbands in

order to take on a new husband.

Every aspect, it would seem, is there. I do not want to belabor

this point, but the clear meaning of the definition of genocide as

articulated in Article 2 of the Convention seems to have been fulfilled and then some, I say with sadness, by the Armenian genocide. We ran into this problem, as you well know, when I raised

very serious questions with regard to the Sudan, with regard to the

killing of the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda, why when there

was a coordinated, all out effort to exterminate we could not call

it a genocide.

Maybe you could answer us. What is the consequence of

euphemistically calling this ‘‘the tragedy’’ or some other less than

availing term? What is the consequence, legally or otherwise, if we

do indeed say this was a genocide?

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I cannot speak certainly to that. I would

be glad to help see if I can get some help here. I certainly cannot

speak to the question of what the legal implication is. I mean, that

is something I think someone else would have to speak to——

But if I could go back to the answer I gave to Mr. Pallone, I

think the consequences are, Mr. Smith, that the things that you

and I have been working so hard to achieve in Turkey over the

years we have been working together become harder to achieve. We

will not make the same kind of progress on human rights. We will

not make the same kind of progress in opening up Turkey. I do not

believe we will make the same kind of progress between Turkey

and Armenia.

These are the things that you and I want. As I say, Mr. Pallone,

we just have a disagreement here.

Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman would yield just for a second?

You see what you just said? You said that by denying human

rights we are going to prevent human rights violations. It is not

true. It does not work that way. You cannot say to me OK, by saying that the genocide not occurred or not calling it that, that somehow that is going to improve human rights in Turkey. How can it

be? How can it be that by denying the historical past of human

rights violations that you encourage the Turkish Government to

improve the human rights record? It does not work that way.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I mean, I am glad to continue this.

Mr. PALLONE. Sure.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I lived 6 years in Turkey. I represented

the United States of America for 6 years in Turkey in various

ways. My perspective on your point, sir, is I would never say that

denying human rights will bring you more human rights.

35

What I am trying to say, not very well, is the following. If we

legislate the title, the name, of this terrible tragedy—you have a

view and I have a view, but let us leave that aside—if we legislate

this, the ability of the United States of America to influence the

public in Turkey for more democracy and more freedom goes down.

I do not expect—— Mr. PALLONE. I understand what you are saying, but I do not see

any reason historically to accept that. It is always the opposite.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Well, I mean, Mr. Smith was nice

enough to ask me to give you my perspective.

Mr. PALLONE. No. I appreciate your candor. I think it is important that you state what you are stating, and I appreciate that.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. I am doing the best I can.

Mr. PALLONE. I do not see any basis for it. I never have historically.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I could just, Mr. Ambassador, make

it very clear that—— Ambassador GROSSMAN. Yes, sir?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey [continuing]. I have great respect for

the Turkish people. It is when the dictatorship, past, present and,

regrettably, there may be dictatorships or there are likely to be dictatorships into the future denies this genocide.

The people who have the guns and have the secret police and

have the torturers, when they commit egregious human rights violations we should be unflinching in our efforts to say that is a

crime against humanity. That is a genocide if it rises to that bar,

which I think this clearly does.

That means no disrespect to the average Turkish person for

whom I have the highest respect. It is their leadership that has

committed these atrocities and it was those people who carried

guns and bayonetted women and children and left them for dead

during these forced marches.

We have obviously a good relationship with Japan, but we make

no bones about raising serious human rights abuses that were committed during World War II and to hold those folks accountable.

We did the same thing with Germany, and they are perhaps one

of our greatest allies in NATO, and yet thankfully they themselves

were forthcoming on that as well.

I want this record to be very clear that I have a great respect

for the Turkish people, but these atrocities that were committed in

the past that were egregious, ongoing, pervasive, well coordinated

genocide, we should not shrink from calling them such.

I would hope that the Administration would not oppose this resolution, maybe assert neutrality, but certainly do not oppose it. We

need to have honest dialogue. Friends do not let friends commit

human rights abuses, past or present. I think we should be willing

to say it.

If you have anything further you would like to add, Ambassador?

I thank you for coming.

Ambassador GROSSMAN. No, sir.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Again, I have deep respect for you as

well, and we have worked together on so many human rights

issues around the world, particularly in Turkey.

Thank you.

36

Ambassador GROSSMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to invite to the witness

table our third panel.

Dr. Robert Melson is a professor of political science and former

acting director of the Jewish studies program at Purdue University.

A specialist in ethnic conflict and genocide, Dr. Melson studied at

MIT and Yale. He is the author of the award winning book ‘‘Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and

the Holocaust’’ published by the University of Chicago Press.

Gu ̈ndu ̈ z Suphi Aktan is presently an instructor of Bilgi University in Istanbul. During his 30-year career in the Turkish Foreign

Service, Ambassador Aktan served as the Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Japan and Greece and as a permanent representative of Turkey to the United Nations in Geneva. During his

tenure at the United Nations he was also president of the U.N.

Trade and Development Board.

We will next hear from Dr. Justin McCarthy, who is a professor

of history at the University of Louisville. A specialist in social history and historical demography who concentrates on Middle Eastern and Ottoman history, Dr. McCarthy is the author of the forthcoming book, ‘‘The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire.’’ Finally we have Dr. Roger Smith, who is a professor of government at the College of William and Mary where he teaches the

comparative study of genocide. A co-founder and past president of

the Association of Genocide Scholars, Dr. Smith recently edited the

book ‘‘Genocide: Essays Toward Understanding Early Warning and

Prevention.’’ Dr. Melson, if you could begin.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. MELSON, PROFESSOR OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE, PURDUE UNIVERSITY

Mr. MELSON. Chairman Smith and Members of the Committee,

when I was 10 years old in 1947—— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Doctor, would you press the button?

Thank you.

Mr. MELSON. Is that it? Thanks.

When I was 10 years old in 1947, my family and I immigrated

from Poland to America, where we found a home and a sanctuary

from the Nazis’ attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe.

In 1965, I did field work for my doctorate in political science in

Nigeria the year before that great country disintegrated in civil

war, massacre and what the United Nations calls a genocide in

part. Some of the people I had interviewed for my thesis were

killed in what came to be known as the Biafrin War.

I mention these things not to call attention to myself, but to tell

you that I have had some personal experience with genocide.

Hence, when I started to research the Armenian genocide in the

early 1970’s in order to compare the Holocaust to that earlier disaster, I recognized a familiar pattern. The two genocides were, of

course, not equivalent, and they differed in significant ways that

were also enlightening for our understanding of genocide. I will return to this point presently.

Let me now turn to the business at hand. My reading of Resolution 398 is that it calls on the President, one, to provide Foreign

37

Service officers and others concerned with American foreign policy

with training and materials concerning the Armenian genocide,

and, two, it urges the President in his annual message commemorating the Armenian genocide to characterize the disaster frankly

and openly as a genocide, not as a massacre or as a tragedy or by

any other euphemism.

I firmly support both parts of the resolution on scholarly, moral

and strategic grounds. In the time allotted me, I wish to briefly

comment on three points. First, the Armenian genocide was the

first genocide of the modern era and set a precedent not only for

the Holocaust, but for most contemporary genocides, especially in

the Third World and in the current post Communist world. Hence,

it is essential that it be studied by American Foreign Service officers, as well as others involved in the shaping of American foreign

policy.

Second, in order to understand the phenomenon of genocide,

members of the Foreign Service community need to study the Armenian genocide and America’s reaction to it. One of the best

places to start are the records of the State Department itself, especially Ambassador Morgenthau’s story. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau was, of course, the American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time of the genocide.

Third, I have often heard it argued that despite the occurrence

of the Armenian genocide and the Turkish Government’s continued

denial of it, the United States should keep a low profile on the subject for fear of hurting Turkish sensibilities and undermining

American strategic and economic interests in the area. Hence, neither the President nor any of his representatives should use the

term genocide when referring to the mass murder of the Armenians.

Let me start with the first point. When confronted with mass

death and forced deportations, the contemporary world community

has often reached for the Holocaust as a paradigmatic case of genocide in order both to make sense and to condemn current events.

In my longer deposition, I suggest that although the Armenian

genocide resembles the Holocaust in significant ways, it is a more

accurate model for current ethnic disasters in the Third World and

the post Communist world than is the Holocaust.

The Armenian genocide and the Holocaust are the quintessential

instances of total genocide in the twentieth century, what the

United Nations calls genocide in whole rather than in part. In both

instances, a deliberate attempt was made by the government of the

day to destroy in part or in whole and ethni-religious community

of ancient provenance that had existed as a segment of the government’s own society.

In both instances, genocide was perpetrated after the fall of an

old regime and during the reign of a revolutionary movement that

was motivated by an ideology of social, political and cultural transformation. The old regime for Germany was the German Empire.

The old regime for the Ottomans was the regime of Abdul Mohammed II, and in both cases a revolutionary movement, the Nazis in

one case and the Young Turks in the other, committed genocide

during a world war.

38

These may be said to account for some of the basic similarities

between the two genocides, but there are significant differences as

well. The Armenian genocide also differs from the Holocaust in

that the Armenians, unlike the Jews, were living on their ancestral

lands when they were deported to their deaths, and the ideology

motivating the Young Turks, the perpetrators, was not a totalitarian racism, but a version of integral or organic nationalism.

The mix of ethnic conflict over land driven by murderous nationalism should be familiar to any student of the contemporary Third

World or post Communist Yugoslavia. Think of Bosnia. Think of

Kosovo.

Thus, following the policy recommendation of Resolution 398,

State Department offices and others involved with making foreign

policy would do well to study the Armenian genocide for lessons

bearing both on the Holocaust and on more current disasters.

Turning to the second point, when Turkey entered the first world

war on the side of Germany against the Entente, the United States

was still neutral, and Henry Morgenthau was the American ambassador during some of the worst moments of the genocide. He received information from American Consuls like Leslie A. Davis

from Harput, as well as from missionaries and other American citizens.

On the basis of this information, he concluded that the Ottoman

government of the day had decided to exterminate the Armenians,

and he tried to intercede on their behalf, but to no avail. At one

point he had a discussion with Enver, the Minister of War, and he

said to Enver ‘‘I know terrible things have been happening. Massacres have been happening all over the Ottoman Empire, and they

are probably happening out of your sight. You probably do not

know about these things. It is local people who are doing these

things.’’ As he says on pages 351 and 352 of his story, ‘‘Enver straightened up, and said, ‘nothing that happens in the Ottoman Empire

happens without my knowing about it, without the Community of

Union and Progress knowing about it.’ ’’

That is the essence of a genocidal situation. Genocide is not simply atrocity. Atrocities happen in every war. Genocide is a statedirected intended policy to exterminate a people. That is what we

are talking about, and that is what was happening here.

Having read Ambassador Morgenthau’s diary, the Foreign Service officer might want to consult the work of Leslie A. Davis, the

American Consul in Harput and a direct witness to the events. For

further research and verification, the Foreign Service officer need

not look further than the U.S. National Archives and Record Administration where there is extensive documentation on the genocide, especially under Record Group 59 of the U.S. Department of

State, Files 867.00 and 867.40.

Turning to the last point, which indirectly answers Mr. Grossman’s position, allow me to speak as a proud American citizen, not

only as a scholar of genocide. I find it thoroughly dishonorable that

knowing what we know about the Armenian genocide we persist in

using euphemisms like ‘‘tragedy,’’ ‘‘catastrophe,’’ and ‘‘massacre’’

when referring to the mass murder for fear of offending Turkish

sensibilities.

39

Would we abide such behavior from a Germany that denied the

Holocaust? Indeed, could Germany ever have evolved into the vibrant and powerful democracy she is today without confronting her

past? The answers are apparent, and they should be apparent in

our relationship to Turkey as well.

Ambassador Grossman suggested that one of the best ways of resolving this issue is for Turkish and Armenian and American people and historians to get together and to discuss this issue. Well,

I was one of these people who was involved in an Armenian, Turkish and American conference last March in Chicago.

I had the privilege of participating at a conference on the Armenian genocide at the University of Chicago, which was attended by

American, Armenian and Turkish scholars. We discussed the Armenian genocide in open fora with Turkish scholars, not once questioning the facticity of the genocide. These were Turkish scholars

who were not evading the issue of the Armenian genocide the way

it has been evaded here this afternoon.

Indeed, some of their contributions concerning the ideology of the

Young Turks was fresh and to the point. While talking to my Turkish colleagues, it dawned on me that one of the reasons they were

openly and courageously researching and discussing the Armenian

genocide, despite their government’s denial, was because they were

Turkish patriots who wished to see Turkey move toward a more

modern, more open, more just and more democratic society.

In their view, having Turkey bravely confront her past in a manner that Germany did with the Holocaust, South Africa did with

apartheid, and the United States is attempting to do with the legacy of slavery and, I might say the destruction of Native Americans, would be a major step in the healing of the breach and the

maturation of Turkey into a democratic civilization.

It is of no help to my Turkish colleagues and to other democratic

forces in Turkey nor indeed to the good name and honor of the

United States to have the President use half truths and euphemisms when speaking about the Armenian genocide.

Thank you for allowing me to testify, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melson appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Melson, thank you very much for

your testimony.

Ambassador Aktan.

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR GU ̈ NDU ̈ Z SUPHI AKTAN,

FORMER AMBASSADOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

Mr. AKTAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you

for inviting me to this hearing. It is a privilege and honor for me

to address this Subcommittee in my personal capacity as a private

citizen, although the topic is not a pleasant one.

The question before us is too complex to treat in 5 minutes.

Therefore, I will not dwell on its historical aspects. Let me stress,

however, that the Turkish people firmly believe that what happened to the Armenians was not genocide. It was a relocation to

other parts of the Ottoman Empire of only the eastern Anatolian

Armenians away from a war zone in which they were collaborating

with invading Russian armies with the aim of creating an indeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
40

pendent state of their own in areas where they were only a minority by ethnically cleansing the majority Turks.

This tragedy occurred during the war between the Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia, which was greatly aided by the Armenians, a long inter-communal struggle between Armenian

irregulars, revolutionaries, and defending Muslim civilians, as well

as a thoroughly disorganized relocation of the Armenian population

under the exceptionally difficult conditions of the day. As a result,

many Armenians were killed, but many more Muslims and Turks

perished as well.

The Turkish people will be deeply offended by this resolution,

which practically accuses them of being genocidal. They will also

find it disrespectful of their unmentioned millions of dead.

Were it to be adopted, I am afraid, it would have two immediate

effects, one on Turco-Armenian relations, the other on Turco-American relations. Under the tremendous pressure of public opinion,

the Turkish Government will be compelled to toughen its foreign

policy toward Armenia.

Turkey earnestly rejoiced at Armenia’s independence after the

demise of the Soviet Union. As a token of friendship, the Turkish

Government provided wheat to the Armenian people, who were

then in dire need. I feel personally gratified to have played a modest part, together with Mr. Libaridan, in accomplishing this Turkish gesture of fellowship.

Turkey integrated Armenia into the Black Sea Corporation

Council, although it is not a littoral state. Despite the so-called embargo, Turkish Governments have deliberately turned a blind eye

to the porous nature of the common borders through which vital

provisions reach the Armenians.

Armenia, however, maintains its occupation of 20 percent of the

Azerbaijan—, creating 1 million refugees, with the help of Russian

protection purchased at the cost of its newly gained independence.

Now by insisting on the recognition of the genocide, the Armenian leadership and the diaspora will finally silence the few remaining voices favorable to them in Turkey. This would effectively

result in sealing the borders. Given the situation in Armenia, this

attitude of the Armenian Government is akin to suicide.

However, I am personally more worried about Turkey’s relations

with the United States. A strategic cooperation has been developed

over the decades with great care and patience on the basis of mutual interest. The first casualty of this resolution would be Cyprus,

for the United States will immediately lose its honest broker status

in the eyes of the Turkish public opinion, and Mr. Moses, the President’s special representative, may no longer find any interlocutor.

Turkey and the United States closely cooperate in the Caucasus,

especially in the field of energy, which has recently acquired great

importance due to the rapidly increasing oil prices. In the region

where Armenia is situated, the potential for cooperation with a

country that considers Turks genocidal will be bound to remain severely limited.

But above all, our cooperation on Iraq will inevitably suffer. The

support for American policy in northern Iraq, already slim, will

dwindle immediately for the Turkish people already feel enough efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
41

fects of the economic embargo with Iraq which costs them billions

of dollars.

Why continue to make this sacrifice? This would mean the military base at Incirlik would no longer be used by United States

planes, war planes, to bomb northern Iraq. Without air power to

deter Saddam Hussein from regaining the control of the region,

this could very well be the end of the INC.

Mr. Chairman, the crucial question is why are the Armenians

not content with the word tragedy or catastrophe or disaster and

insist on genocide? I am not a jurist, but I served as Ambassador

to the United Nations section in Geneva where questions related

to humanitarian law or the law of war are also dealt with.

In connection with the former Yugoslavia, we thoroughly discussed the Genocide Convention. What determines genocide is not

necessarily the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecution, but, as you said several times, the intent to destroy a group.

Historically, the intent to destroy a group, a race, has emerged

only as the culmination of racism as in the case of anti-semitism

and the Shoah. Turks have never harbored any anti-Armenianism.

Killing even of civilians in a war waged for territory is not genocide. The victims of genocide must be totally innocent. In other

words, they must not fight for something tangible like land, but be

killed by the victimizers simply because of their membership in a

specific group. Obviously both Turks and Armenians fought for

land upon which to build their independent states. I think this dispute may go on forever. We must find a way out.

Therefore, I would propose the following. Since genocide is an imprescriptible crime, the Republic of Armenian can have recourse to

the International Court of Justice and may, therefore, ask the

Court to determine according to Article 9 of the Convention whether it was genocide. But, I know that they cannot do it. They do not

have a legally sustainable case. That is why they seek resolutions

which are legally null and void.

One last point, Mr. Chairman. I would humbly suggest that all

the references to Great Britain in the text of the resolution be

dropped, for in July of this year the British Government declared

in the House of Lords that, ‘‘In the absence of unequivocable evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians, the British Governments have not

recognized the event of 1915 and 1916 as genocide.’’

Let us not forget that Great Britain was occupying power after

the first world war, and the Ottoman archives were at its disposition.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Aktan appears in the

appendix.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your

testimony.

Let me now ask Dr. McCarthy if he would make his presentation.

42

STATEMENT OF JUSTIN MCCARTHY, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY,

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

Mr. MCCARTHY. I do not know if I can be heard or not. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your invitation and the invitation

of the Committee, even though I know we have not always agreed

on these issues.

I would like to ask if I could address a couple of things that have

come up as well as summarize my statements, and if my whole

statement could be read into the record.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Without objection. Your statement and

that of all of our witnesses will be made a part of the record.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you.

A number of times this afternoon it has been alleged that the

Turkish Government should simply accept what has been called

the history of genocide. The one thing I wish to say about that is

it assumes Turkey is simply a government that has a policy of hiding something; that it is a government that has decided for one reason or another not to admit something that their ancestors have

done.

I want to state that there are millions of men and women in Turkey who remember their parents’ and grandparents’ accounts of the

terrible events of World War I. These accounts are very similar to

the accounts that are told by Armenians, so similar, in fact, that

if you were to change the names you would not be able to tell

which was which.

Like the Armenians, Turks were killed by their enemies. In their

case, the enemies were often Armenians. Like the Armenians, the

Turks suffered forced migration in which great numbers died. The

Turks and other Muslims lost nearly 3 million souls, and, like the

Armenians, they have not forgotten those losses.

The difference between the Germans and admitting what the

Germans have done, and the Americans and admitting what the

Americans have done to American Indians and others and the

Turkish position is very simply that the Turks do not believe that

they had done it.

Not only that, but they primarily remember the evils that were

done to their own people, just as the Armenians do, because people

have a tendency when they remember the past or when they tell

their children about what was done is not to admit what crimes

they have committed, but only to talk about the crimes that have

been done to them.

I believe that this resolution attacks one of our allies without affording those allies a chance to tell their own side of history. I believe that the Turks will not receive this well, but I do not particularly concern myself with all of the issues of how the Turkish Government would act, although I believe those fears are probably

real.

What I am concerned about is the way in which the Turks on the

street, the ordinary Turks, as well as the government, will react to

this. I am concerned because I do not believe that the statements

in the document are historically true.

For example, House Resolution 398 quotes from General

Harbord, an American General admittedly, but it does not mention

that General Harbord has been proven to have lied and to have

43

suppressed evidence from his own staff that demonstrated that Armenians had engaged in mass murder of Turks and Kurds.

Adolf Hitler has been quoted numerous times today as if Adolf

Hitler needed any help from Middle Eastern history before he could

put in place his evil plans. He has been quoted as if there is universal agreement about what he said when in fact there is not. In

fact, there is much scholarly debate about what Adolf Hitler supposedly said.

These things have to be debated, but the resolution ignores the

need for this debate. The statement that 2 million Armenians were

deported and 1.5 million were killed is a bizarre inflation. Immediately after the war, Armenian representatives estimated that approximately 600,000 Armenians died in the period, a number that

I for very different reasons agree with. Now, the figure seems to

have risen to 1.5 million dead, which is slightly more than the entire Armenian population of Ottoman Anatolia. Where do these figures come from? They are surely not the result of historical inquiry.

The Turkish courts martial that convicted members of wartime

governments of the Ottoman Empire are quoted. In fact, they were

not, as was stated earlier, courts martial convened by the Turkish

Republic and government. They were convened by a quisling government set up under the watchful eye of the British and other allies who occupied Istanbul and that were interested in only making

them happy. This was not a Turkish Republican court, unlike what

was said. They were the enemies of the Turkish Republic. Indeed,

the witnesses had no right to defend themselves. There was no evidence taken. We could go into this for quite some time, but I will

not go into the details because it is a historically contentious area,

but I will say this. If the resolution was going to quote this court

that was trying to make the British happy, at least it could, also

state that the British themselves, who had control of the archives,

control of the government, and sent their people in to search

through everything they could find for evidence of an Ottoman

force against the Armenians, for evidence of an Ottoman order to

kill the Armenians, the British could find nothing and had to admit

that they could not do so.

Now, when these things are not stated this gives a more than

one sided story. The resolution states that the national archives of

Turkey contain records about these courts martial, which is true,

but the resolution might also add that these same archives contain

voluminous evidence of Armenian actions against Muslims. You

cannot quote from the archives in one place and not mention other

documents in the archives.

Also, it is very difficult to accept statements such as those of the

allied governments of 1915. If you say those things, you should also

mention that these governments were at war with the Ottoman

Empire. You should mention that allied propaganda bureaus deliberately created a damning image of Turks to counter anti-Russian

propaganda from the Central Powers. It was well known in the

United States that Russia was persecuting its Jews, and this was

reported in American newspapers against the Allies, of whom the

Russian monarchy, or the Russian czardom, were members. The

British Propaganda Bureau came up with the Armenian horrors as

44

a job that could be used against the central powers, and they did

their propaganda very well.

Now, I cannot doubt, and all can accept, that the concept of an

Armenian genocide has been widely accepted. The various statements of political leaders listed in the resolution demonstrate this.

This is partly due to the fact that in Europe and in the United

States there were very few Turks, very few people to defend their

ancestors. Religious and ethnic prejudice played their part, as they

most definitely did in examples of Ambassador Morgenthau’s activities, which I would be glad to quote at some point.

I cannot doubt that that is the case, that people do accept this.

Obviously there are many who do, but in America it is only in our

lifetime that there have even been scholars who have had the capability of using Ottoman sources to study Ottoman history. It is no

accident that the denial of the Armenian genocide has come when

those scholars commenced their work.

The Turkish Government has only recently done what it could to

defend its own history. Actually, the Turkish Government did its

best not to bring up these matters because they were afraid of the

tremendous animosity among their own people who had lost their

land, whose parents were killed, whose animosity was exactly the

same as the animosity we see among Americans.

The Turkish Government did not want continued wars. So, unfortunately for the cause of history, it kept very quiet about this,

and only recently has it begun to open archives. That is partly

what has caused the new resurgence in the study of this subject.

Do I expect that the Subcommittee and the Congress will accept

my word on historical events? I do not, nor should they accept the

word of others. Such matters should be considered by historians

who marshal facts, analyze sources and engage in scholarly debate,

historians who do not put forth only one side of the argument.

Congress, with limited time to consider the pressing problems of

our country, cannot be expected to read all the literature, then

come to conclusions on historical events. Yet in fairness that is exactly what must be done before historical judgments are made.

I agree completely with those who have stated that it would be

good if, rather than simply putting Turkey forth as an example of

genocide, that all of the genocides that have taken place in history

also be taught to our Foreign Service. I hope that they are.

The Irish potato famine, Rwanda, the murder and starvation of

Ukrainians by Stalin, Serbian death camps—all of these events

should be mentioned. If you only mention what happened to Armenians in Turkey, what are the Turks to think? They are being singled out for condemnation, unjustly censored for something they

believe they did not do, when those whose guilt is agreed upon goes

unmentioned.

If the Foreign Service of the United States is to be instructed on

man’s inhumanity to man, would it not be better to instruct in all

of the many examples of inhumanity? If this were to be done, justice would demand that the curricula include not only the

sufferings of the Armenians, but also the sufferings of the Turks.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy appears in the appendix.]

45

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. McCarthy, thank you for your testimony.

Dr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF ROGER W. SMITH, PROFESSOR OF

GOVERNMENT, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is a privilege to be here with you.

Let me begin by putting a human face on the issues we have

been asked to discuss. Did the killing of the Armenians beginning

in 1915 constitute genocide, and what suggestions can be made to

increase awareness among American Foreign Service officers and

others of the continuing significance of the Armenian genocide?

I count among my friends a retired career U.S. Ambassador. He

was an ambassador to two African states. When he heard about an

Armenian genocide resolution in Congress, he asked me what was

the point. The events had happened a long time ago, he said. In

the 19th century, he asked? What happened may not have been

genocide anyway. In any case, it was time to forget the events and

move on.

I cannot think of a better example of why the training that the

resolution envisages is so important. He is an astute man, yet he

had no inkling that it was with the Armenian genocide that the

international law of crimes against humanity began, that the subsequent failure to carry through with the domestic and international trials contributed to the culture of impunity that made

genocide feasible, nor did he have any understanding of the costs

that denial of genocide by Turkey since 1915 has inflicted upon the

world.

Lack of respect for the victims, sending signals to would be perpetrators that they can commit genocide, then deny it and get away

with it and cutting us off because these things that are denied get

consigned to oblivion, cutting us off from knowledge that might

help prevent future genocides.

Nor do I think that my friend realized the extent to which giving

in to Turkey’s denial out of political expediency prevents Turkey

from assuming responsibility for its own history, making it difficult

for that nation to transcend its past, yet we have seen as recently

as the Rwandan genocide that there has been much confusion

about how to describe the clearest case of genocide since the Holocaust.

Therefore, I would suggest that officials dealing with human

rights issues and genocide should receive training in the nature

and history of genocide, become aware of the means of prevention

and the opportunities that have been lost and be exposed to the arguments and logic of genocide denial.

They would need, as many of the speakers have said, to consider

a range of cases, but prominent among them would be the Armenian genocide. The Armenian case I think, as Professor Melson has

also suggested, is the prototype for much of the genocide that we

have seen since 1945. It was territorial, driven by nationalism and

carried out with a relative low level of technology.

There are also powerful resources for the study of the Armenian

genocide and the reports of the American officials at the time, notaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
46

bly Ambassador Henry Morgenthau and Consulate Leslie Davis,

who made it quite clear that the Young Turk Government was pursuing a policy not of wartime relocation, but of extermination.

The evidence for this being a centrally planned, systematic genocide comes from many sources and consists of different types of evidence which converge in a single direction. The evidence of intent

is backed by explicit Ottoman documents.

One of the leaders, for example, of the special organization that

carried out the genocide sent a telegram to a regional official, ‘‘Are

the Armenians who are being dispatched from there being liquidated? Are those harmful persons whom you inform us you are

exiling and banishing being exterminated, or are they being merely

dispatched and exiled? Answer explicitly.’’

Intent is also backed by the outcome of the actions against the

Armenians. It is hardly conceivable that over a million persons

could have died due to even a badly flawed effort at resettlement.

Moreover, the pattern of destruction was repeated over and over in

different parts of Turkey, many of them far from any war zone.

Some of you may know the story of Musadalh. It was along the

Mediterranean, not along the Russian front. Such repetition could

only have come from a central design.

Further, the reward structure was geared toward destruction of

the Christian minority. Provincial Governors and officials who

refuse to carry orders to annihilate the Armenians were summarily

replaced. Armenian men were drafted into the Army, set to work

as pack animals and subsequently killed. Leaders were arrested

and executed. Then the deportations of women, children and the elderly into the deserts of Syria and Iraq began.

The American Ambassador Morgenthau immediately recognized

that the forced marches into the desert and the atrocities that accompanied them were a new form a massacre. ‘‘When the Turkish

authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were simply

giving the death warrant to a whole race. They understood this

well, and in their conversations with me they made no particular

attempt to conceal the fact.’’

We have heard, for example, that the reports from the British

and the Russians and the Americans and so on were prejudiced,

but let us look then at the testimony of the Ambassadors to Germany and Austria, representatives of governments allied with Turkey, who also quickly realized what was taking place.

As early as July 1915, the German Ambassador Wangenheim reported to Berlin, ‘‘Turks began deportations from areas now not

threatened by invasion. This fact and the manner in which the relocation is being carried out demonstrate that the government is

really pursuing the aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey.’’

By January 1917, his successor reported, ‘‘The policy of extermination has largely been achieved. The current leaders of Turkey

fully subscribe to this policy.’’

Mr. Chairman, I would conclude that the charge of genocide is

certainly sustained. There is ample evidence of it. The intent is indicated by a number of different forms of evidence coming from different sources, and it is high time that the President, the State DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
47

partment and other officials in the American Government use the

word genocide because that is truly what it was.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears in the appendix.]

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith.

Let me ask, Dr. Melson. You made reference to some Turkish

academic scholars who seem to agree that this was a genocide. Are

you at liberty to discuss who they were and what their findings

were?

Mr. MELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer not to name names.

I do not know enough about the current situation in Turkey, and

I am not sure how safe they would be if I mentioned these names.

However, you might want to contact Professor Ronald Suny of

the University of Chicago, who organized this conference, and he

could give you more specifics than I can.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I appreciate that.

A thread running through your response is something that I certainly glean from Ambassador Aktan. In all candor, Ambassador,

your testimony was a threat, and I say that with all due respect.

You have come to this Subcommittee, and we appreciate your

being here, but you have laid out a number of areas where you assert there would be a deleterious effect on U.S. foreign policy and

what I would perceive to be a joint foreign policy objective that inures to the benefit of Turkey as well, with regard to Cyprus, the

Caucasus, and Iraq.

Let me say that that, frankly, makes me more suspicious of the

government’s efforts to suppress this information, the fact that you,

a very, very distinguished diplomat, would come here and threaten

the Congress and the U.S. Government, that if we pass this resolution that simply states something that we truly believe to be true

based on information from a variety of sources, one big, fat threat

just hangs over the horizon.

You know, the U.S. Government and I, too, have been very supportive of Turkey. And I also believe that human rights abuses, including current abuses of torture, should never be swept under the

table because we do not want them to get in the way of the relationship.

Turkey has been a friend and ally and a very important part in

the underbelly of NATO, but that does not and should not create

a prior restraint or in any way to mitigate our efforts to speak in

support of people in Turkey today who are being tortured, many of

whom are Turkish people, journalists who have spoken out and

have written what they believe to be the truth about the current

regime. I mean, you even spoke of retaliation—suicide I think was

the word you used—vis-a-vis the Armenian people.

OK. You have been blunt, but let me be equally blunt. We may

not get this resolution passed, but I think it is certainly a clear indication of your government’s view, or if you are not representing

the government, of your view as an individual. Threats are not

helpful in this dialogue.

This is being put forward. I am not beholden to either the Turks

or the Armenians. I look at the facts of the case, the fact that it

was, in my view, the first major genocide of this century and the

fact that the information overwhelmingly points to it.

48

I mean, I would ask you, Mr. Ambassador. Do you believe that

Ambassador Morgenthau’s story is accurate? Inaccurate? Hyperbole? Lies? What is your view of it? I am sure you have read it.

Mr. AKTAN. First of all, I wish to thank you once again for inviting me to this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to threaten

anybody. If you go through the—— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Would the gentleman suspend? Retaliation and the negative consequences in a whole host of areas was

cited.

Mr. AKTAN. But if you go through the text carefully, and I am

sure that you will do it in the future, you will see that under the

pressure, tremendous pressure of the Turkish public opinion, the

government will feel compelled to do this, to do that. That is not

a threat.

I am trying to explain the mood in Turkey, the atmosphere in

Turkey, the political atmosphere. Turkish people cannot accept it,

and the governments, whether we like it or not, the Turkish Government is a democratic government. It is under the pressure of

the Turkish public opinion. It cannot do anything against the Turkish public opinion, and it is not a threat. It will feel forced to do

it. That is very unfortunate, but that is—I mean, the frankness requires me to say it.

Now regarding Mr. Morgenthau. Well, I read several things

about his book, and one monograph prepared by scholars says that

he has never written a book, that there was a ghost writer who had

very little knowledge about Turkey. I am not a historian. I cannot

say anything authoritative on this topic. Therefore, perhaps the

historians can indicate it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me ask Dr. Melson or Dr. Smith,

and then Dr. McCarthy. What is your view of Ambassador Morgenthau? Do you believe his book was ghost written? Even if he had

a ghost writer, does it not embody his beliefs as to what he observed as U.S. Ambassador to Turkey at the time?

Mr. SMITH. The work and the historian that the Ambassador referred to was Dr. Heath Lowry, whom I exposed as ghost writing

letters for the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, trying to

discredit and decrease information about the Armenian genocide.

Lowry, in that book called ‘‘The Story Behind Ambassador

Morgenthau’s Story,’’ argues that it really is a pack of lies from beginning to end, and as far as a ghost writer, I mean, many prominent people write books with others, and Morgenthau did dictate

it. It was edited, but he approved what was said there in sum.

I think that the other thing that we can say about it is that

much of what Morgenthau reports is reported by Leslie Davis and

other American Consulates. It is confirmed by many missionaries,

some of them German, some of them American, and so there is a

great deal of evidence there in sum, so whether it was edited and

helped along by a professional writer, I think that is not really the

essential issue. It is the truthfulness of the text, and I think the

text is essential truthful.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. McCarthy.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I do not think there is any doubt that the book

was ghost written. They have the checks that were written and

49

things like that to the ghost writer, so I do not think anyone doubts

that it was ghost written.

I agree completely with Dr. Smith that this does not cast particular doubt one way or the other on the book. It would have been

nice if he had said ‘‘as told to’’ or something like that, which he did

not do. He did not try to hide it, but again the problems that I have

with Ambassador Morgenthau are two.

One is that many of the things that Ambassador Morgenthau reported, for instance, conversations he had with Talat Pasha, the

Minister in charge of what he called—well, was later called the

genocide. These things were not reported to State at the time.

When he had conversations with the Prime Minister, which he

found out years later he remembered having had, he did not report

them to State at the time.

This seems to me highly unusual and makes me question what

he said. Usually, when an ambassador meets with a prime minister

or minister of the interior, he will report it to his government and

report what was said.

Undoubtedly, many of the things that Ambassador Morgenthau

reported were completely accurate. Many of the murders that took

place that he reported were accurate, although they were reported

much better by others, since Morgenthau was a rather florid stylist.

He did exaggerate. He did primarily because, I am sorry to say,

the man was definitely a racist. If you have read his book, as you

have indicated you have, then you read the section on ‘‘good blood’’

and ‘‘bad blood’’ and superior types of humanity and inferior types.

This is something that is very distasteful to a modern reader, but

perhaps more acceptable in his time.

I find that the main problem is, to recapitulate, not that what

he writes is completely wrong, but simply that he never mentions

the other side of the story. For instance, we know that in the city

of Van when the Armenians took the city that they killed every single Muslim man, woman and child in that city. We know that

Kurdish people from outside the city were rounded up in a giant

bowl outside of Zeve, which is a village outside of there. They were

surrounded by sharpshooters and machine gunners, and were all

killed except for one small boy.

We can see the monuments. The people remember the stories. I

have spoken to that boy. He now unfortunately is dead, but many

years ago I spoke with him. We know all these things took place,

and we know that Ambassador Morgenthau somehow only noticed

dead Christians. Only Christians counted, even though he himself

was not one.

It is fascinating that he failed to report what was happening to

the Jews in the area. I am afraid we have to keep in mind, too,

Ambassador Morgenthau deeply wished to be Secretary of State,

had been thwarted once in that. He did not feel he could succeed

by advancing a position that was not popular in America.

Mr. MELSON. If I may just add to the conversation, Ambassador

Morgenthau based much of his testimony on consular reports and

missionary reports directed to him, but there is a larger issue that

has been raised by my colleague, Professor McCarthy, and also by

50

Ambassador Aktan, and that is the suffering of the Turkey population.

Here you might be surprised or they might be surprised to discover that those of us who studied the Armenian genocide recognize the suffering of the Turkish population. There is no question

of denying the sufferings of the Turkish population, and indeed the

Turks were massacred and were ethnically cleansed before the Armenian genocide, and here I am talking about the Caucasus, and

I am talking about the Balkans, where hundreds of thousands of

Turkish refugees were driven out of those areas as they became

independent and fell out of the Ottoman Empire.

This raises a larger issue, and the issue is this. We are asking

the Turkish Government and through the Turkish Government the

Turkish people to do something indeed very, very difficult, and it

is this. This is a government and a people that have a history of

victimization. People who themselves have been victimized and

who trace their identity to the Young Turks, to the period of 1908

to 1923, have a great difficulty in facing up to the possibility that

the Young Turks themselves were able to be victimizers.

There is a psychological issue involved here. There is a moral

and psychological issue. We are asking for the Turkish Government

and for the Turkish people to look back with a certain amount of

courage through their past.

We know that the Germans were able to do that. Now, the Germans were able to do that, of course, after thorough occupation by

the allies after the Second World War. I suspect if not for that occupation, the Germans may not have been able to do that, and so

we are asking something extraordinary of the Turks, but what we

are asking is the truth.

We are asking them to face up to the truth, to face up to their

own history, so that the relationships between the Armenians and

the Turks can move on to a different footing and for the Turks

themselves and for Turkey itself to join the family of democratic

nations, and there might even be practical consequences. There

were discussions of practical consequences before.

I suspect that one of the reasons the Turks are having so much

trouble getting into the European community, the European Union,

is precisely because of the human rights issues and especially their

denial of the Armenian genocide.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to ask your response then,

Dr. Melson, to the question raised by Professor McCarthy about

how many Turks died at the hands of Armenians and whether it

is a distortion of history to single out one side as guilty of genocide.

Were the scale and the severity of atrocities on both sides equal?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I think one needs to make a distinction here.

First of all, the policy of the government. It was a policy of the

Ottoman government. The Armenians, they had local head men

and things of the sort and sum, but did not really have the power

of the state behind them in sum.

Various writers, including some of them from the German diplomats, talk about a defensive violence, that if the Armenians were

attacked they did defend themselves in sum, so one has to look at

that sort of violence in sum.

51

There is also often a commingling there between the Armenians,

who were with the Russian Empire and who were, of course, waging war against the Ottoman Empire in sum, so it is hard sometimes to distinguish between which group of Armenians we are

talking about, those in Turkey or those in Russia in sum, but I

think the other issue that has been raised, and a number of speakers have made this point as well, a lot of Muslims died.

Now, there is a big difference between dying and being killed,

being intentionally killed, and people say, revisionists of the Holocaust say, more Germans died in World War II than Jews did. If

that is true, we still have to say but what is the difference there

in sum.

So I think that there undoubtedly were some Armenian revolutionaries. There were some who went over to the side of the Russians. There were killings at the local level. Some of it was defensive. Some of it was not in sum, but I would not see what any Armenian violence did as constituting a kind of genocide. It was not

the scale. It was sporadic, and most of it was defensive.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. McCarthy, I would like to ask you

a question. You heard Dr. Smith testify a moment ago that the

Ambassadors of Germany and Austria and representatives of governments aligned with Turkey also quickly realized what was taking place.

As early as July 1915, the German ambassador reported to Berlin, ‘‘Turks began deportations from areas now not threatened by

invasion. This fact and the manner in which the relocation is being

carried out demonstrate that the government is really pursuing the

aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey.’’ That is the German ambassador.

By January 1917, his successor reported, and I quote from Dr.

Smith’s testimony quoting the Ambassador, ‘‘The policy of extermination has largely been achieved. The current leaders of Turkey

fully subscribe to this policy.’’ If it was just a matter of British or American propaganda, why

would the allies of Turkey, Germany and Austria make such statements?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I hope I have made it plain that it was not

purely a matter of British and other propaganda; that there was,

indeed, tremendous loss of life among the Armenians.

With all of these things—— Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If I could just interrupt, and then I

will yield right back to you.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Of course.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It makes the statement. Do you have

any reason to believe these statements are inaccurate from the——

Mr. MCCARTHY. That the statements were not made? I believe

the first one was slightly different than what you quoted. I may be

mistaken. I believe he did not—well, again, the general tenor of the

statements I am sure was made by Wangenheim especially.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. But, ‘‘The government is really pursuing the aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey.’’ That is

from an ambassador aligned with—— Mr. MCCARTHY. I do not believe that is. Is that how the quote

reads?

52

Mr. SMITH. Yes. I mean, I do not have the documentation with

me . Well, I actually do have the reference here. The quotation is

drawn from the German archives. This is not from Morgenthau,

but the German archives.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I believe the concept, and again unfortunately

this is why I say historians have to argue these things, because we

are not sitting here with our documents, and we are not trying to

translate from German written in fraktur script.

I believe what he was talking about eradicating the Armenian

presence in Turkey. I may be mistaken. I believe that that is the

structure of the German, which is quite a different thing than saying killing. There is quite a different concept behind the words, but

again I do not have them in front of me.

I think if you are going to say these things you have to take into

consideration all sorts of prejudices. You also have to quote the entire area of what the Germans have written, not simply small

quotes. You have to address where they talk about what happened

with the invasion by the Russians, what happened with the Armenians taking Van where they more or less support the Turkish

case. You cannot just take a couple things out of quotes.

When you talk about the deportations, we have to mention the

fact that hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were deported

did survive. We have to mention the fact that they did not go to

the desert, as is always stated, but they went into the areas primarily in northern Syria. Also, that Cemal Pasha, who ended up

being killed by Armenians in the end, actually fed people with military stores.

From Armenian sources there are, if I remember right, and I am

not sure I do remember the numbers right, 250,000 who survived.

We have to keep that in mind. We also have to keep in mind many

things that have been said today.

Most of the Armenians who died were not deported. Of the Armenians who died, at least as many ran from the Ottoman armies into

the Caucasus as the Muslims ran from the Russian armies. We act

as if these people were all deported by Ottoman columns. They

were not. They died in much greater numbers by simply running

from armies. They did not go the way the Ottoman sent them.

They went the opposite way to the north. This has not been mentioned.

We talked about Musa Dagi. Musa Dagi was undoubtedly a case

of Armenian rebellion against the Ottomans that the Ottomans

tried to put down. Surely, not even after reading Franz Werfel’s

very fanciful book on the subject can one deny these things.

The problem is these are extensive problems. They need tremendous documentation. They need an incredible amount of work. We

have to sit down. We have to work on it, so I suggest that what

the Congress might consider is exactly the kind of thing that Dr.

Melson was alluding to. Turks, Americans, Armenians of various

kinds from all over the world, we should be getting together in a

great Congress. We should get together over a long period of time

and look over all these things and argue them in a scholarly way.

If our government or any other government was to support something, it should be that. We should be working to try to examine

these issues in ways that are impartial or at least two sided.

53

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me just respond very briefly. Destroy or eradicate. I mean, ‘‘eradicate the Armenian race.’’ If that

is the actual word as translated, that certainly suggests a genocide.

I mean, you say survived. Survived what, a campaign or a reign

of terror? I mean, why were they making—— Mr. MCCARTHY. They lived under—they were taken to Syria

under horrible conditions. I do not doubt this for a moment. It is

hard to tell, but approximately half of those who were deported

lived through the war, and they lived under Ottoman control. They

were not under the control of the British or anyone else. Once they

got to where they were taking them, they survived.

I am not saying they were happy, and I am completely opposed

to this as government policy. It was a bad thing to do, but to say

that these people were involved in genocide, you have to ignore the

fact that they were completely under Ottoman control, alongside

Ottoman soldiers, and nobody shot them. Nobody killed them. They

lived through the war. All the Armenians in Istanbul and Izmir

and Edirne and many other cities completely under the control of

the government lived throughout the war.

The equivalent in the Holocaust would be to say that the Germans killed none of the Jews in Berlin. This is ridiculous. It could

not have been called a genocide because if those that were most

under Ottoman control were not killed, how can it conceivably be

a genocide?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. As we all know, genocides often unfold

over time. Even those who are killed in the Warsaw ghetto at first

thought that they were going to be spared, and then they were

being told when they were put onto cattle cars that they were

being taken to new jobs elsewhere, only to find over time that it

was a systematic extermination.

I just want to ask my final question, Dr. Smith. Is it your testimony that your quotes regarding those Ambassadors is in context?

Out of context? Is it accurate?

Mr. SMITH. I think it is in context, and I think it is accurate. The

translations to English were done by a person who speaks and

writes German. It is possible to check the accuracy of those, by getting the copies of the original.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. If you could get back to us with the

copies, we will take it to the Library of Congress. They have an expert translation service.

Mr. SMITH. Of course.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Because I think when questions are

raised along the lines of well, that is not accurate, or that was

ghost written, or this, that and the other thing, it creates a certain

impression——

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey [continuing]. Which is unfair, if, especially in your case, you believe this to be true and accurate.

I would like to yield to Mr. Sherman for any questions he might

have.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would point out that Ambassador Aktan has pointed out that

there could be some practical disadvantages from passing this resolution.

54

I have sat with Chris Smith and this Committee for almost 4

years, and again and again he has urged upon us that we respect

human rights, that we call them as we see them and that we give

a recognition of human rights a high priority in our foreign policy.

I would be very surprised if this Committee would back down

and not recognize the Armenian genocide simply because there

might be some practical disadvantage for recognizing the truth.

There are in fact very powerful economic forces operating on the

U.S. Congress that have prevented the recognition of the Armenian

genocide until perhaps this year, and it may be fortuitous for a

number of reasons that we are able to get the support of House

leadership to bring this to the floor in the ordinary course of business and pass it this year.

I am a little concerned about the Ambassador’s comments first

about the friendship of the Turkish Government to the newly independent Armenia. Blockade comes to mind as not a synonym of

friendship. I am also—well, my people have a term, chutzpa. Now

with Leiberman becoming famous it is getting a lot of use. It is defined as the Menendez brothers asking for mercy from the court because, after all, they are orphans. That is to say they killed their

parents, so now they are orphans.

Ambassador, you do indicate that the Turkish cause in the

United States is put at a disadvantage because there are many Armenian Americans. The Armenian Americans I grew up with were

in the United States because their parents and grandparents had

fled this genocide, so it is not a coincidence that there are many

Armenian Americans living amongst us today. It is in the case of

many families a direct result of the genocide against them.

Professor McCarthy or Dr. McCarthy, I think you are right to say

that in designing a training program for our State Department we

should not only focus on this genocide, but on so many others. It

is necessary that we bring up this one in large part because of the

denial, but we already have a policy at the State Department of

testing those who apply for their college and grad school educations.

I think that any competent grad school or even college program

in the United States for Foreign Service officers would include a

knowledge of these other genocides, but I would happily work with

and I think the authors of this resolution would happily work with

those who would want to lengthen it by identifying other genocides

in the history of this planet that should also be part of State Department staff education.

Ambassador, I am still struggling to understand why the Turkish

Government has such great difficulty in recognizing this genocide.

You captured it a bit in your presentation where you said the people of today’s modern Turkey do not want to view themselves as

being genocidal.

I would ask you. Do you think that today’s Germans or today’s

Americans should be regarded as genocidal people when in fact the

ancestors of both did commit genocide, in one case against the Jewish people and another case against many identified North American tribes?

55

Mr. AKTAN. Thank you. You see, Mr. Congressman, you believe

that it is genocide, and I believe that it is not a genocide, so there

is disagreement between us.

Mr. SHERMAN. But it would——

Mr. AKTAN. What we can do is as I suggested. In fact, it is not

a suggestion. I challenge the Armenian Government to take the

issue to the International Court of Justice at the Hague because according to the Convention the only competent body is the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Let us see whether it is

genocide or not. Then it will be easier for us to accept it because

the competent body can pass a judgment on this historical fact. It

is an imprescriptible crime. That is to say whenever it has been

committed, it can be tried.

Let us have the International Court of Justice to interpret the

treaty; that is to say the treaty of genocide, and come up with its

own view because I know that I cannot convince you, but be sure

that you cannot convince me. I mean, when you talk about denial

of genocide I would reciprocate there is a denial of a genocide of

the Muslim population there, and no one mentions it.

I mean, I very carefully followed the film. There was one word,

pushing the Turks from the Balkan Peninsula. The word is ‘‘pushing.’’ My family is one of those people which has been pushed. As

a result, two-thirds of the family has been massacred.

If the Armenian question were genocide then Turks must have

been subjected to various genocides in the Balkans and in the

Caucasus or in Russia. No one mentions that.

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, there is no doubt——

Mr. AKTAN. Can I make one more point?

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I think you misinterpreted my point. I was

not trying to engage you in a debate did the genocide occur or did

it not occur, but rather to understand what would be the implication for today’s modern Turkish nation if, as I am sure you do not

think it would occur, either this Congress or the International

Court at the Hague were to determine that what happened to the

Armenian people was indeed genocide.

Putting aside, you know, what the historical facts are, do you

think, because we agree on the historical facts in North America.

We agree on the historical facts in the Third Reich. Do you think

it is appropriate to refer to today’s modern Germans or modern

Americans as genocidal?

Mr. AKTAN. I cannot answer. I mean, it is against my profession

to talk about other people.

Now, if there is anti-semitism for one millennium in a country

as a result of which a genocide is committed and accepted—committed before the eyes of the world and accepted by the country in

question—it is all right, but in our case there has never been antiArmenian feeling, hatred or anything. We lived together peacefully

for 800 years. This was the reason why they were called loyal subjects, not the others. I mean, the Greeks were different, but Armenians were the loyal subjects.

Now, what you think is very interesting because you say that

there are facts and I have to accept them, but there is disagreement over these facts.

56

Mr. SHERMAN. I asked you a simple question about Germans and

Americans, and I guess you have declined to answer.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Ambassador, let me ask you a question. Many United Nations conventions, and perhaps all of them, only create jurisdiction

when a convention enters into force and a particular country ratifies that convention and becomes a party to it.

For example, just recently when Mr. Pinochet was held to account for the torture convention, it was only for those tortures that

occurred after Chile became part of that torture convention.

Perhaps any of the panelists will want to comment, and I think

this is something we need to get to the bottom of. Article 9 of the

genocide convention talks about disputes between contracting parties and the like, but again the convention on the crime of genocide

only came into effect in 1951.

I do not know—and perhaps we can seek further elaboration on

this from the proper authorities—whether or not there is any jurisdiction, whether or not this is just a nice statement that if they

make a declaration you are willing to live with it. But again the

crimes occurred before the convention and the statute was in effect.

You know, a similar issue is being raised with the World Court,

the Rome statute, about whether or not countries that do not become a part of it will be held to account under its jurisdiction. It

is a very, very bitter dispute with the United States saying that

unless we are a party to it we cannot be held to account.

It seems to me that, in the case of the genocide convention, you

have a 1951 convention long after the events in question—as a

matter of fact, part of the genesis of the convention itself was the

Armenian genocide and, of course, the Holocaust committed against

the Jews.

Do you know definitively whether or not the jurisdiction exists?

Mr. AKTAN. You see, Mr. Chairman, what is the meaning of

imprescriptibility of a crime? What is the meaning of

imprescriptibility of a crime? Imprescriptible means that whenever

it has been committed it is a crime. It should be followed up, tried

and condemned.

You see, genocide is different. It is not any kind of homicide. This

is a different thing. You cannot compare it with the 3,000 men

killed by the Chilean regime. This is something entirely different.

Therefore, one has to try it. Let us try it. Let us check with the

jurists. Let us check with the academics, and let us see it. I believe

that it is possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Since you have recommended it, do

you know if it is possible?

Mr. AKTAN. You see, no knowledge. I think, I believe it is possible.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Ambassador, I think your suggestion is quite

interesting. Obviously the Court would have to either assert its jurisdiction, or perhaps there could be some agreement to jurisdiction, an agreement to apply the Court’s attention to events that occurred long before it was created.

57

I do not see a reason for this Congress to wait for that action.

You yourself pointed out with great satisfaction a decision by the

British House of Lords. If the British House of Lords can speak to

this issue years ago or months ago, certainly Congress can act in

the next few weeks, but just because Congress provides some guidance to our State Department and also announces the policy of this

Congress, at least the House of Representatives, that does not

mean that the International Court at the Hague could focus on this

issue.

Perhaps the other panelists could comment on that, but it would

seem to be a useful exercise. Do you have any indication that the

Turkish Government would cooperate with such a trial?

Mr. AKTAN. If you go through the text of Article 9, the Turkish

Government or any other government has no choice but to cooperate because here there is no option of—— Mr. SHERMAN. Excuse me. Excuse me. Are you saying as the

Chairman pointed out, the Court was created in the 1950’s. These

events occurred many years before. Do you have any indication

that the Turkish Government would waive that issue and say—— Mr. AKTAN. I cannot, sir.

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. We are happy to have an inquiry into

our policies nearly 40 years before the Court was created?

Mr. AKTAN. I cannot talk for the Turkish Government, but my

understanding of this article is that Turkish Government cannot do

otherwise but accept the case.

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, the Turkish Government could indeed argue

jurisdiction. If the Chairman is correct, that would be a very strong

argument. It is possible to waive jurisdiction.

I am much more conversant with private law than I am public

international law, but a person who is wanted for a crime in a jurisdiction can voluntarily walk in and say here I am. You did not

have jurisdiction over me, but I want my case tried. Likewise, the

Turkish Government could consent to whatever modifications of

the treaty that brought the Court into existence, could consent to

those modifications to give the Court jurisdiction over events that

occurred early in the twentieth century.

Is there any statement of leading circles in Turkey that indicates

that the Turkish Government would be willing to have whatever

changes are necessary made so that the Court would have jurisdiction?

Mr. AKTAN. Mr. Congressman, I retired about 3 years ago, so I

have no idea what the government thinks about it. In fact, for the

first time—I am making this proposal for the first time in my life,

and the Turkish Government is not aware of it, so I cannot really

engage the Turkish Government.

Mr. SHERMAN. So your suggestion is novel and personal and does

not——

Mr. AKTAN. Exactly.

Mr. SHERMAN. And is not mirrored in scholarly or political articles appearing in Turkey?

Mr. AKTAN. No.

Mr. SHERMAN. Then you are to be commended for novel and creative thinking. I am just going to guess that there will be some in

Turkey who take notice of your suggestion, and I hope they will

58

also take notice of at least one Member’s belief that it is a suggestion that ought to be pursued and let us give the Court the jurisdiction, let all sides come forward with all evidence that they have,

and I see at least three scholarly Americans here that could probably be of assistance to such a Court.

Mr. McCarthy, I see you have a comment.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I just want to say I think that even if the World

Court or the Hague would not hear this case, or did not feel it

should, I could see why it might think that they were not the responsible party.

I think that the idea that has come forward is a very good one.

These things should be collected and researched. There should be

a body. I myself would prefer a scholarly body, but I see that a

legal body is perfectly acceptable as well. We are willing to accept

that lawyers can be scholars.

That being the case, it seems to me that one of the things that

this Congress or another body could do, and perhaps should do, is

to call on the governments of the area. Not simply the government

of Turkey, but also the government of Armenia, and hopefully the

government of Russia, which is very involved in this as well, to

provide scholars and hopefully some financing to attend these

meetings. Also, open all archives that have not been opened, and

provide translators for these meetings.

For instance, I can think of some areas of the Turkish archives

that are not yet perfectly opened that should be, although it is

much better than it was. The Russian archives have definitely

many areas that are not open. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation archives are extremely important and are completely

closed, to my knowledge.

All of these things be called for. Anyone who says they will not

provide these things is making a statement about what they think

really happened. All parties should be willing, if they are honest

and if they are honorable about this. They should be willing to

state yes, we wish to have this investigation take place. We wish

it to be as public as possible, and we wish to open all archival materials to all scholars so that it can take place.

Mr. SHERMAN. I know that I do want to hear from Dr. Melson

in a second, but I know that whether or not this resolution passes

is not yet determined; that it may need to be modified a bit to get

the support it needs to pass the House, and an amendment that

called upon every entity to open its archives from Russia to the

ARF, from Istanbul to Uravan, and that also called upon such actions to be taken by governments and by the court perhaps needing

even treaty modifications to clearly grant jurisdiction to the International Court and the Hague over this matter and to call upon

that court to investigate and try this matter.

If those additions to this resolution would secure its passage, I

think the authors might very well appreciate that as an approach,

but it would be helpful, of course, to have the slightest indication

from the Turkish Government that it would go forward

because——

Mr. MCCARTHY. Or the ARF, right?

Mr. SHERMAN. And the ARF as well. I would, frankly, be surprised if those on the Armenian side would not welcome an opporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
59

tunity. I mean, they have worked very hard to get the U.S. Congress to recognize the genocide, and if we are successful in passing

this resolution that will mean a lot, but nothing would—what

would mean even more would be an adjudication after evidence,

after open archives and with the participation of the Turkish Government, any decision by the International Court.

With all due respect to the House of Representatives, that would

achieve the Armenian side’s purpose of international recognition to

a greater degree than even a resolution supported by the distinguished Chairman and even a resolution that is passed by this

House.

Dr. Melson, did you have a comment?

Mr. MELSON. Yes, Mr. Sherman and Chairman Smith. I must say

I am sitting here feeling somewhat frustrated and impatient. The

reason is that of course we should not avoid any court looking at

the evidence, and we can delay this issue for a world court or any

other court to look at, but the point is that the evidence is in and

has been in for many, many years.

In fact, some of the discussion that I am hearing now reminds

me a little bit of the kind of trap that Holocaust deniers lay. They

want a debate. They want further evidence. They want further discussion, as if the issue is open to further discussion, further evidence and so on.

We have tons of evidence. We have evidence in the American archives. We have evidence from Germany. We have evidence from

France. We have evidence from the Vatican. We now have fresh

evidence. Dr. Yair Auron has done work on evidence from the

Israeli archives, from the Zionist agency at the time. Jamal Pasha

was getting ready to deport the Armenians from Palestine and so

on.

The issue of Van that Professor McCarthy raises, for me Van always stood as the Warsaw ghetto of the Armenian genocide. The

people of Van were surrounded and were waiting to be massacred

because they knew that the rest of the Armenian people were being

massacred, and for a time they resisted, and they resisted successfully. Then the Russians came in, and there were atrocities committed by the Russians, and then the Turks returned, and they

massacred the people of Van.

We do not really need a world court or any other court to look

at these issues. The verdict is in. There was an Armenian genocide.

Those of us who have studied it, who came to it without being Armenian chauvinists or Turkish chauvinists, who simply looked at

it, at least I did, as a way of trying to shed some light on the Holocaust, are convinced that a genocide occurred, and we simply think

that the truth needs to be told, period.

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. Doctor, if I could comment? As far as I am

concerned, the evidence is in. As far as I am concerned, we should

pass this resolution. I am not talking about delaying for a day the

recognition by the House of Representatives that a genocide of the

Armenian people occurred.

If, however, the International Court of Justice at the Hague can

also review these matters and I believe reach the same conclusion,

that would be even more authoritative. You cannot ask the International Court to render a verdict just because the evidence is in,

60

just because you have seen the evidence and I have seen the evidence.

A verdict from that court would require the procedure that Dr.

McCarthy outlined and that I may have added a little bit to, and

that is you would need a grant of jurisdiction to the court and an

instruction to the court that it should focus on this issue. You

would need open archives, and in order to have the effect that I

would like to see in Turkey you would need the participation of the

Turkish Government because I think to have the full effect I would

like to see on the Turkish people you would need a process in

which their government presented its side of the case to the International Court.

I frankly doubt that the Ambassador’s proposal will get very

much support in Turkey, but he would know better than I. I am

not talking about us hiding from the evidence. I am not talking

about delay or waiting for another process before the House of Representatives acts, but if we want the International Court at the

Hague to act it would have to go through a procedure that some

would say you should not even have to go through because the evidence is in.

The evidence is in to this Congress. The evidence is in to you and

I. The evidence is not in to the docket of the International Court

in part because it may very well lack jurisdiction without the modifications that would be necessary for the Ambassador’s challenge to

be effectuated.

I have taken more than the traditional 5 minutes, but, Ambassador, we have talked about your proposal for a while. I ought to

let you comment on the commentary. I do not know if you have any

further comment or not.

Mr. AKTAN. I do not think I have much to add to what I have

said.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pallone?

Oh, I thought you were done.

Mr. AKTAN. Sorry. You have been waiting for the last 85 years,

and I understand that you are running out of patience. You cannot

wait for another couple of years, and you want to pass this resolution in the House. Certainly it is up to you to adopt this resolution.

There will be enormous difficulties in Turkey, in Turkish public

opinion, in government circles, and personally I do not think that

the Turkish Government, the present one or any other one in the

future, can cooperate with a country whose legislative body passed

a resolution which is almost diametrically opposite to the Turkish

position, to the feelings of the Turkish people, neglecting the disaster which befell the Turks and the Kurds and the Muslims during this period, without even mentioning any massacre of the

Turks.

You are in a hurry. Well, I understand, Mr. Congressman, that

you are decided. Your decision has been already taken, and whatever I say would not affect your position, so I stop here.

Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out that you have not affected my

view as to what historically happened, but I would say that people

will listen to the International Court far more than they will listen

to Brad Sherman, and I think that a—I am not saying—I do not

think it would affect my vote, but I think if your government were

61

to issue a proclamation tomorrow that it wants this matter resolved at the International Court and it will do everything possible

to have that court convene and that it will insist on open archives

and if those archives, including those of the ARF, are opened up

that it will consent to jurisdiction.

If a declaration like that were to come from Ankara, those of us

who support the resolution would probably be unsuccessful, so your

proposal is an intriguing one. It is not one of the Turkish Government. It is only your personal proposal, but if the Turkish Government were to adopt it it could probably prevent this resolution from

being passed and change the focus of American attention to this

from a U.S. Congress that you do not have a lot of faith in to a

judicial process that you yourself have proposed.

So I do not know if anybody—I suspect there are people in Ankara listening, and I will check the worldwide web tomorrow morning and see if there is a statement by the Foreign Ministry of Turkey announcing at least a tentative acceptance of this idea.

You know, I want to see this resolution pass, but if it does not

pass because the Turkish Government has consented to the jurisdiction of the International Court, that would be the best of all reasons not to pass it.

Mr. AKTAN. May I make one very short comment?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Mr. AKTAN. Well, let us try it. Let the Armenian Government

have a recourse to the court and see the outcome.

Mr. SHERMAN. If the Chairman is correct, the Turkish Government would have to consent to a jurisdiction that the court currently does not have, and I would say this. If the Foreign Ministry

of Turkey issues a release tomorrow consenting to the International Court’s jurisdiction calling upon it to study these facts,

opening its archives and the ARF for the government in Uravan

does not immediately agree then this resolution is not going to do

too well on the floor.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Could I suggest just one thing?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Since we are talking about a government, you

might want to give it a week or so. It might take a little longer

for them to make up their mind.

Mr. SHERMAN. OK. No, no, no, no. I said I would start checking

the web tomorrow. We are not going to vote on this on the floor

for about a week, maybe 2 weeks.

So, yes. I would say that if the Turkish Government does not

want this resolution passed, its consent to the process that the Ambassador laid out would probably lead to the legislative result,

would prevent the adverse bilateral consequences that he predicts

from occurring. I hope they would not occur anyway, but it would

defuse a difficult circumstance that we are all aware of.

So, no. I will start checking the web tomorrow just in case something happens at lightning speed, but even in a week or two this

would be of tremendous significance. I will say this. If the Turkish

Government consents to this jurisdiction and we do not hear from

the two archives—you know, you have asked that the Armenian

Government and that the ARF indicate their willingness to open

their archives. If we heard a positive response from Turkey and a

62

lack of positive response from the Armenian side, that would also

make it difficult for this resolution to pass.

Ambassador, I think that your government should listen to you

very carefully. You have come up with a very novel and creative

idea, and if your government will embrace your idea they may defeat us on the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pallone?

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask the Ambassador and Dr. McCarthy some questions, but I just wanted you to understand where I am coming from

and why I have the same sense of frustration that Dr. Melson expressed before.

First of all, let me say I do not want to wait to pass this resolution for anything, and the reason is because I do not want the

genocide to happen again. I do not look at this hearing as just a

historical exercise. I am very fearful that if we do not send a message to the Turkish Government and to the world that the Armenian genocide occurred that somehow it could be repeated.

That is the reason why when I was talking, commenting about,

you know, with Ambassador Grossman that I think that the whole

American policy which I basically see as one of appeasement is a

very dangerous thing.

I was very concerned about what Ambassador Grossman said because I think it is a policy of appeasement that says that if you

deny the genocide or somehow do not acknowledge it that that will

help human rights. I think the opposite is true. I think that if you

deny it you hurt the cause of human rights, and if you do not pass

a resolution forthwith it may happen again.

Now let me just explain. You know, Ambassador Aktan made a

statement about how there are good relations between the Armenian and the Turkish people, and I believe that. I do not believe

that Turks are anti-Armenian. I think that both yesterday in 1915

and today that the anti-Armenian attitude comes from above,

comes from the government and is imposed by the government;

that essentially the Turkish people like Armenians, but they are

told by the government not to.

You know, you have to understand that Armenian Government

is not in a position, in my opinion, to take action the way that this

government is. You will remember that Armenia is a very small

country. It is being blockaded on most sides, most of its borders or

at least 50 percent of its border by, you know, Turkish nations, either Turkey or Azerbaijan.

I am not really sure if they are going to be in a position, you

know, to take something to the Hague or to challenge Turkey because they may be fearful of it, of the consequences, the way you

have described, because of the Turkish Government’s attitude.

I really think that it is incumbent upon this body. You know, this

is the United States. This is a powerful country. We do not have

to worry about whether someone likes it or not or what the consequences are going to be. We represent the Armenian diaspora,

and it is our obligation to pass this resolution regardless of what

happens in the Hague or regardless of whether the Turkish Government or the Armenian Government wants to bring this to the

Hague. I mean, to me it is a totally separate issue.

63

Let me ask my question of Ambassador Aktan because I said

that part of my fear is that the genocide not happen again. There

is a blockade of Armenian by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Every effort

that I see that is made by the Turkish people to interact with Armenians is stopped by the Turkish Government.

I will give you an example. When I was in Armenia the last time

and then in Azerbaijan, we went up to Gumry, and we were told

by the mayor of Gumry and the chamber of commerce there that

they had worked out a relationship with the Carz region in Turkey

and the government, the local officials there, the mayor and chamber of commerce, that they wanted to have an exchange of the government. They wanted to have economic relations. They wanted to

cross the border and have trade.

Then I read I think in July or August that even though that was

happening and when the mayor of Gumry and some of the local officials went over to Carz they were told and forced by the Turkish

Government to turn back and to go back to Armenia.

I see repeated efforts by the Turkish Government from above to

stop interaction between the two peoples, to stop commerce, to stop

trade. I am just very fearful that if we do not send a message that

this type of activity, you know, what happened in the case of the

genocide was wrong and that the government intentionally did it,

which I believe they did, that the government will continue a policy

that is anti-Armenian with its blockade or some of the other things

that you mentioned in your statement, Mr. Ambassador.

Let me ask the question. You say in your statement that by insisting of the recognition of the genocide, the Armenian leadership

in the diaspora will finally silence the few remaining voices favorable to them in Turkey. This will effectively result in sealing the

border. Given the situation in Armenia, this attitude of the Armenian Government is akin to suicide.

Now, what reason do you have to believe that somehow the Turkish people would rise up and demand that the government seal the

border, which is really effectively already sealed, or somehow, you

know, cause some kind of, you know,—I do not know—military action or whatever that, you know, would be akin to suicide on behalf

of the Armenian Government? I do not see anything.

When I talk to people who are Turkish or when I read the papers

and I see what is put out by the Turkish press, I do not see any

reason to believe that whatsoever. My view is just the opposite of

what you and Dr. McCarthy have said, and that is that it is the

Turkish people that want the blockade lifted, that would like to see

the genocide recognized, and it is the government which is, you

know, still primarily influenced by the military, in my opinion, that

imposes this as a matter of policy in order to somehow, you know,

create an atmosphere that is anti-Armenian.

See, I think opposite of what you think in terms of what the effect of this genocide resolution would do.

Mr. AKTAN. Mr. Congressman, first of all, I do not agree that

there is so much difference between the attitude of the Turkish

Government and the Turkish people. I think you did not take into

account the occupation by the Armenian Republic of 20 percent of

Azerbaijan’s territory. That is extremely important and very senVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:00 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\69533 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
64

sitive in Turkish public opinion, and that is the reason why the

government sealed this frontier.

We say the government sealed, but the government overlooked

that there is cross border trade between the two sides. In fact, in

reality there is a kind of ambivalence in the attitude of the government to Armenia. When Armenia became independent, Turkey was

very happy, but all of a sudden this Nagorno-Karabagh crisis broke

out, and we have to take into account the regional balance in that

region. It is extremely important. We have certainly obligations toward Azerbaijan. We cannot accept the occupation by a country of

a very large territory creating 1 million refugees. That is the reason.

But the Turkish public opinion, including Turkish press and

media, criticized the attitude of the government when the government, one branch of the government, without instructions, I mean,

according to the news, turned back a delegation from Armenia.

You know, despite the fact that we do not have any diplomatic

relations, all the governmental officials, including the Prime Minister, pay an official visit to Turkey. We are always on talking

terms with them. We discuss our problems, and we told them several times that what we are expecting is a gesture toward Azerbaijan so that we can establish our diplomatic relations.

If you ask my personal view, I say it was a mistake not to establish diplomatic relations soon after Armenia became independent.

Mr. PALLONE. But is your view that the reason we are not establishing—the Turkish Government is not establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia because the Turkish people would not accept

it?

Mr. AKTAN. No. Because of the situation, the war situation, between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Turkish people have a great

sympathy for the Azeri people because there is a very large Azeri

population in Turkey.

Mr. PALLONE. I understand that, but, you see, my whole premise

here, and again I want to issue a question. My whole premise here

is that by having this resolution passed the U.S. Government will

be saying to the Turkish Government we do not like—this genocide

occurred. We want you to recognize it, too, or at least we are putting ourselves on record, you know, as an ally of Turkey to say that

that is our view.

Your whole response to that and Ambassador Grossman’s response was oh, that is going to create a catastrophe between our

two states. It is going to be sour relations terribly. I just do not

agree with that. I mean, I do not see it.

You know, when I was in Gumry, for example, and, you know,

you talk to people there. You talk to Turkish Americans here in the

United States as well. In I guess it is the eastern part of Turkey,

in that region that is west of Armenia, the Carz region, there is

a tremendous interest on the behalf of the business community and

the people for trade and lifting the embargo so that they can go

back and forth because they are naturally one region.

The Turkish Government then steps in and says no, we do not

want that to happen. Is that not something that is being imposed

from above rather than from the people?

65

Mr. AKTAN. No, I do not think so, Mr. Congressman. As I said,

the reason is quite simple; because of Armenia’s relations with

Azerbaijan. It is as simple as that. No Turkish Government can

change this position. That is very unfortunate, but this is the situation.

Can I go back to one of your statements because you said that

you do not want similar genocides.

Mr. PALLONE. Let me explain what I meant by that because I do

not want you to misunderstand me.

I know that Armenia is a very small country by contrast to Turkey, OK, militarily, economically, whatever, very small. I think

that the Armenian Government is very concerned about it certainly

would not want a war with Turkey because they would assume

that they would lose it, OK, so I do not think they are in a position

to be, you know, going to the Hague and asking, you know, for

some action with regard to the genocide.

You know, we are the powerful ones here in the United States.

We are in the position to say this happened, you know, recognize

it and do something about it; not the Armenian Government. They

do not have that. You know, whether they do it or not I do not

know, but I think it would be very difficult for them because of

their situation there as a very small country.

I worry that if the Turkish Government does not—you know, if

the Turkish Government continues the position that it has, which

is, you know, blockade, no interaction, whatever, that what that

does is create a sort of an anti-Armenian hatred that does not already exist, and so, you know, I am fearful that there could be another war. I am fearful that—— Mr. AKTAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. Turkey and Armenia could come to a

war and that the consequences of it could be that the Armenian

population and the Republic of Armenia is wiped out because it is

so much a bigger country.

Mr. AKTAN. There is no such chance.

Mr. PALLONE. Hopefully that never happens, but I just want you

to understand where I am coming from. I think it is incumbent

upon the Turkish Government, which is not even here represented

today, that if they are going to create a better atmosphere between

the two countries that they recognize the genocide, just like Germany did, you know, the Nazi Holocaust. Now they have good relations with Israel.

There are so many examples like that. I just do not believe that

the consequence of this Congress taking this action is anything but

helpful in terms of the relations between these Caucasus nations

and the United States.

It worries me when you say in your statement that, you know,

this is akin to a suicide or there is going to be sealing of the borders or, you know, these other things about, you know, you have

the same line essentially that Ambassador Grossman has and even

Dr. McCarthy.

I will ask him. He said the same thing. He says I do not believe

that the Turkish Government is staying quiet because—no. He says

that he believes the Turkish Government is fearful of its own people, the Turkish people.

66

Mr. MCCARTHY. Excuse me? Surely that could not have been

what I meant.

Mr. PALLONE. I know, but you gave me the same impression, Dr.

McCarthy, that somehow if we pass this resolution the reaction in

Turkey would be such that the government would have to take, you

know, extraordinary measures.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I believe that all governments should be responsive to what their people want. The area that we disagree on, first

of all, is whether there was a genocide. You say it should be admitted because it happened. I say it should not be admitted because

it did not happen.

Mr. PALLONE. But you did say—— Mr. MCCARTHY. The other matter—— Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. That you felt that if we passed this,

regardless of the history, that it would have a negative impact on

the relationship.

Mr. MCCARTHY. And where our disagreement lies very much is

how we view what the Turks really think about this.

I think I can honestly say that I have some reason to speak on

the issue. I first went to Turkey in 1967 for 2 years as a Peace

Corps volunteer, and I have been back many, many times over the

following years. I have studied the language of the area. I speak

Turkish, and I make a point of talking to cab drivers, not just university professors.

It is my opinion that the Turkish people, if one can use such a

phrase, are overwhelmingly against the sentiment in this resolution. You said you have spoken to Turkish Americans on this. Well,

I see a number of Turkish Americans in the audience, and they are

not wearing ‘‘Yes’’ buttons.

I think if this is passed you will see overwhelming Turkish newspaper coverage. You will see people on radio, on television, in newspapers, and what they will say is, I think, basically what I told

you. They will say these people are lying about our forefathers.

They will say these people are forgetting about the dead Turks because all they care about are the dead Armenians.

If we were in the same position and if you believed the same

thing someone said about your father and grandfather and greatgrandfather, you would feel the same way.

Mr. PALLONE. But there is a difference, and I do not want to

keep dwelling on the point because I think Ambassador Aktan referenced it. The difference is that this historical record, in my opinion, is such that it was the action was taken by the state. It was

intentional action taken by the state, and that is the definition of

genocide, and that is what I do not want to be repeated. That is

all I am saying.

Mr. MCCARTHY. If I could just say one thing about that? It

should be at least understood that this is another area in which

there is intense disagreement. It is my opinion, and that of a number of other historians, that the majority of murders, the majority

of actual deaths that took place on both Armenians and Muslims,

was not the action of any of the states, but was the action of small

bands and individuals.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, let me just say——

Mr. MCCARTHY. The villagers have killed each other.

67

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Let me ask you this.

Mr. MCCARTHY. That is the primary reason.

Mr. PALLONE. I am not going to keep asking because I want to

get on to the next panel, too, but I do not know what you said, but

I will ask you again.

In the resolution it specifically makes reference to the trials that

took place I think after the first world war where the leaders of

Turkey were indicted and tried and convicted of having conducted

these massacres, OK, which I take to be genocide. If you say that

a person who is in charge as an elected official or a government official was intentionally doing this and tried for it, then that is

genocide.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, but that is not what the trials actually

were.

Mr. PALLONE. All right. How do you explain these trials? You say

that they were just—— Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes?

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. Bogus or what?

Mr. MCCARTHY. It was not an elective Turkish Government. It

was not anything like that. What it was—— Mr. PALLONE. But the leaders were tried?

Mr. MCCARTHY. No. The leaders were tried, but it is as if—I do

not know how to put it. If you picked six of your friends as a jury

and decided to hold a trial.

These are people who lost the war. The government that was

elected, which is a government that you do not approve of, was

thrown out of office by military action by the allies and others.

They were afraid for their lives, and they ran, ultimately to be

killed by Armenians.

An unelected government was put into power. This unelected

government called a quisling court. They called a court of people

that were traitors to their own country.

Mr. PALLONE. How is it any different from the Nuremberg

trials——

Mr. MCCARTHY. Oh, completely different.

Mr. PALLONE [continuing]. Or the trials that took place in Tokyo?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Completely different in every way.

Mr. PALLONE. How so? How so?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Because the British and the Americans at the

Nuremberg trials called trials in which absolute standards of evidence were kept and in which people were allowed to defend themselves.

In this case, the British did no such thing. The allies did no such

thing. What they did was they said to their friends in this quisling

government, ‘‘Look, could you take care of this for us?’’ The British

themselves, when they realized that that was not working, tried to

find the evidence to do it themselves and failed miserably. If it had

been brought to a real court the court would have voted it down

immediately.

Not even the people in favor of it could find the evidence, and

they had all the archives in their hands. Everything was there, and

they could not find it.

Mr. PALLONE. It seems to me——

Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, that is absurd.

68

Mr. PALLONE. It seems to me that the only difference is that in

the case of what happened in Japan and at Nuremberg the allies

completely, you know, took over the country and occupied the country and stayed there for long enough so that the convictions held

sway, whereas in the case of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire the

allies quickly pulled out and, therefore, no one ever—the convictions were never enforced.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Are you in favor of—I am sorry to ask this in

this way, but are you in favor of politically appointed juries that

are taken from one’s enemies, from one’s political opponents, by an

unelected government, and then saying that this is a rational decision?

Mr. PALLONE. I do not see any difference.

Mr. MCCARTHY. This is exactly what we have to stand against.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I am asking the questions, so it is unfair of

me to keep insisting on my point, but I do not really see any difference between what happened in Turkey, Germany or Japan

other than that in the case of Turkey the allies quickly got out of

there, and as a result these convictions were never enforced.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I would suggest that you should read the

transcripts of these trials. If you did, I think you would find great

differences. Again, I cannot believe that you think that is the way

a court should be constituted.

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted you to answer the question, and I

appreciate your answer. I mainly was concerned about what the

Ambassador said in terms of his feeling about the consequence of

this resolution because I think it is just the opposite, but, you

know, we are not going to agree, and I suppose that is why we are

here because of the disagreements.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

I would like to thank our very distinguished panel. While there

is a huge gulf and a very significant disagreement, I think the dialogue and the debating was very enlightening.

I do thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to be

here and look forward to being in further contact with each and

every one of you.

Mr. MCCARTHY. And could we thank you and the Committee for

the kindness you have shown us? Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy.

Mr. MELSON. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Yes, Doctor?

Mr. MELSON. I have some documents which I would like to leave

for you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Without objection, those documents

will be made a part of the record, as well as the document that has

been given to me by Congressman John Porter asking that that be

made a part of the record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The above-mentioned documents appear in the appendix.]

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 6:38 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(69)

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 24, 1999

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175