Waltzing Around Denial: A Response to Jirair Libaridian

In early June, a conference held in Tbilisi, Georgia, generated great controversy. The individual and organization at the heart of this conference have, for much of the past decade, been actively engaged in efforts to extend the denial of the Armenian Genocide into academia as well as in the political realm in North America.

The Armenian Weekly published a report outlining the problem as we saw it, quoting five scholars who weighed in on the issue. We also reprinted Asbarez Editor Ara Khatchatourian’s editorial on the subject, and a letter to the editor from George Aghjayan, in our opinion pages.

Almost all of the scholars from Armenia who were scheduled to speak at the conference subsequently withdrew.

Also in early June, Prof. Jirair Libaridian, who was scheduled to deliver a keynote speech at the Tbilisi conference, contacted the Weekly asking for the opportunity to respond. This month, we received and published his six-page response, which was incidentally much longer than the articles he was responding to combined.

While it is for the readers to judge whether Prof. Libaridian’s arguments adequately address the concerns previously expressed in the Weekly, several points necessitate a short editorial response:

1)  Prof. Libaridian calls the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) “an organization accused of being at the forefront of denialist efforts in American academia.” This is a rather charitable description, to put it mildly. The TCA’s denialist record, highlighted in our articles, speaks for itself. There is even a U.S. federal appeals court decision designating the TCA as engaging in genocide denial. Yet, it seems, no amount of evidence is conclusive enough for Prof. Libaridian. Ironically, this is a common strategy for genocide deniers as well, who profess to be unconvinced regardless of the amount of conclusive evidence one throws at them.  We believe that there is more than enough information available for Prof. Libaridian, or any other informed reader, to conclude whether these are “accusations” or “facts.”

2) Prof. Libaridian accuses the Weekly of a “lack of professionalism” for not consulting him before publishing the editorial, the letter to the editor, and the opinions by five scholars. Yet, we are entitled to have a position on this matter, and to express it in our pages. When Libaridian approached us with a request to respond, we welcomed it too.

3) Prof. Libaridian alleges that we did not produce “an article that informed the public of the basic facts and the essence of the controversy.” The essence of the controversy is explained clearly in our article: “The individual and organization at the heart of this conference have, for much of the past decade, been actively engaged in efforts to extend the denial of the Armenian Genocide into academia as well as in the political realm in North America.”  We believe that this is where discussion of the matter begins. Interestingly, Prof. Libaridian, in a lengthy interview published on the Groong Armenian News Network prior to the conference, neglected to even mention the Turkish Coalition of America (as if it were peripheral to the discussion). Even in his response to the Weekly, he neglected to address the track record of the TCA and its impact on the conference. If anyone is avoiding “basic facts,” it is not the Weekly.

4) Prof. Libaridian asks, “Wasn’t it possible for the editors of these newspapers to imagine that another writer could produce quotes by another five scholars or more whose opinions regarding participation in the Tbilisi conference would be the opposite of what five protagonists quoted in that article had to say?” Yes, such a scenario is, indeed, possible. It is also possible for Prof. Libaridian or any individual to produce quotes by five scholars who deny the Armenian Genocide. Or five scholars who deny the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, or global warming. There are people with all kinds of opinions everywhere.

5) “At the end, we are not talking about the factuality of the Genocide; rather we are looking at the politics of Genocide recognition,” argues Prof. Libaridian. But when the latter undermines the former, in our opinion, are we not allowed to express that opinion?

6) Prof. Libaridian asks, “Why is the assault against the participants directed against scholars of Armenian origin?” First, the Weekly made no “assault.” It offered the informed, critical remarks of five individuals for whom Libaridian professes “great respect.” Second, none of the scholars interviewed made it an issue of Armenian versus non-Armenian scholars. We believe scholars—Armenians, Turks, or others—who take part in such conferences are legitimizing denial and, worse, giving credibility to one of the most virulent denialist-funding institutions. This is our strongly held opinion. Expressing it does not constitute an assault.

7) He further asks, “Will the denialists disappear if we boycott their conferences? Is a conference best left to denialists?” No, Prof. Libaridian, they will not disappear; but, yes, we believe that denialist-funded and denialist-organized conferences are best left to denialists.  Is there any compelling evidence to suggest that the denialists will disappear if we embrace them and legitimize their conferences through participation? Moreover, how is it helpful for genocide recognition to engage with the most regressive, rabidly anti-Armenian agents of genocide denial?

8) Prof. Libaridian asks, “Are Armenians in the same situation regarding the international recognition of the Genocide as Jews are regarding that of the Holocaust?” No, we are not in the same situation. And had Holocaust scholars not had the wisdom to marginalize Holocaust deniers decades ago, they would still be arguing with fringe elements because denialists will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence presented.

9) “Can we be sure that Turkish or other scholars who share our pain but do not use the term genocide or who do not agree to reparations are less ‘dangerous’ than those who openly oppose the use of the term?” Prof. Libaridian repeats variants of this argument several times. However, there is a difference between scholars and institutions that do not use the term “genocide,” and an institution that spends millions of dollars filing lawsuits against scholars and institutions of higher learning and bullying legislatures to deny the genocide.

10)  Prof. Libaridian says, “The conference was being held with the co-sponsorship of the most important university in Georgia, a critical neighbor of Armenia, with the participation of many scholars and others from that country and elsewhere who would have heard only a denialist position had Armenian scholars not participated.” Here, it is Libaridian himself who is making the issue one of Armenian scholars vs. non-Armenian ones. Moreover, we believe that any Georgian or other scholar would have, one hopes, the common sense to ask the question, Why aren’t Armenian scholars present? The answer would be clear.

11)  “There were no limitations on what and how I could discuss and no request was made, nor could one be accepted, for prior approval of my talk,” writes Libaridian.  Of course there were no limitations. Because the entire point of the denialist is to say: “Look, we are discussing the matter! ‘Both sides’ are represented! The ‘debate’ is ongoing!” They know they cannot prove that the genocide did not take place; they also know that they do not need to. They just need to manufacture doubt.

12)  “Turkey and the Turkish world represent a complex reality. Turkey or Turks cannot be seen as good or bad.” We do not require a lecture on the complexities of Turkey from  Prof. Libaridian. The Weekly has regularly provided a forum for Turkish writers who embody this complexity, as well as a venue to discuss the changing perceptions of Turkey and Turks among Armenians. However, in this “complex” reality, we do not wish to engage with the most regressive elements, those pouring millions into denial. There are many others with whom we can engage and are engaging across the spectrum.

13) “One cannot engage in these processes expecting to achieve a desired goal by arbitrarily defining safe moral/intellectual limits for oneself, leaving out what may disturb one’s comfortable scholarly and quasi-political world.” No, not “arbitrarily.” However, there are always moral limits to be drawn as journalists, writers, and scholars. It is far from “arbitrary” to draw a line at playing into the hands of a denialist state and those who advance its policies. To those who draw the line elsewhere, we wish them luck. But we hope we have the right to express the opinion, strongly, that ours is a different path.

14)  In his reference to Prof. Hovannisian—in which he compares TCA with UCLA! –Prof. Libaridian seems to have no interest in understanding the issue at stake here. His analogy only makes sense if Prof. Hovannisian had invited Shaw to present “the Turkish side of the story” in his classes and conferences, or had agreed to represent “the Armenian point of view” in Shaw’s.

15) Finally, Prof. Libaridian asks if it “is incontestable, irrefutable, incontrovertible, that somehow they [the five scholars quoted in the Weekly article] have managed to find the ultimate truth, the ultimate value, and the ultimate morality.” This is a non-question and normative moral relativism, at best. One can ask that question about anything and everything. And in so doing, one will end up lacking an opinion, a position, a moral compass on anything.

36 Comments

  1. If my memory serves me correctly, Dr. Libaridian has written at least one article in a Turkish journal that fuzzes up the Armenian genocide by not using the “G” word forthrightly. Supposedly, this is done to not get denialist Turks angry right off the bat and to thus, supposedly, get them to at least listen.

    Beyond “listening”, has it worked? Let’s hear the evidence. I think that it simply caters to Turkish denialists. I think that denialist Turks know full well that the Armenian genocide is a fact.
    What they are doing is simply professional lying. They have the same books and sources as we do. What is their problem?

  2. The price of fame and noteriety … It must have been difficult for Mr. Libaridian to decline an opportunity to display his intellectual labyrinth that most creative people are often victim to. With all due respect Mr. Libaridian just admit that you made a mistake , trying to salvage the clear wrong makes it worse . Your conter arguments are not convincing and do not hold . Pls remember and respect the memory of your grandparents as I remember mine . Please honor your essence and don’t bent front of “intellectual games ” Parade of the same . Do you really had a void and lack of attention ? Poblicity ? To engage in this Dort of game ? I’m sure , not . So , please let’s reflect on the wholesomeness of our existence rather then dwell in unclear polluted waters …. Just defeat those weaknesses that we intellectuals fall victim to at times . You made a mistake . Just don’t do it again . Good luck !

  3. Your arguments are excellent. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to respond to such sophists, who want to make a name for themselves.

  4. Since the days Mr. Libaridian served as advisor to the first president of Armenia, Mr. Ter-Petrossian, he has taken highly concessionary positions vis-a-vis the Armenian Genocide. Apparently he has not tired himself of bringing discredit to himself and then justifying his blunder by such nonsensical claptrap.

  5. My earlier comment was fully addressed to Mr. Libaridian . I’m sorry that I did not make that clear enough . By “you” I ment Mr. Libarudian. I totally agree with the position and argument presented by The Armenian Weekly .

  6. Frankly,I do not understand what the problem is, reading Weekly’s response.
    i) did Libaridian participate in the conference? If not ,what is he “accused” of?
    ii) can we stop individuals from participating in conferences we do not approve of?
    iii) scholarship and politics have to be kept apart and we should not be afraid from exploring, listening, discussing with others no matter how objectionable the opinions expressed are. Better know what people think,rather than swim adrift in one’s own convictions.
    Simply, my point is that we should not get excited every time an individual does or say things we do not agree with .Hay Tad requires an incredible effort and preparedness on our part so that we are effective in every aspect of the issues involved. The way things go at the moment, our lines and scholarship are laser thin.We do not have enough firepower and instead of arguing back and forth on marginal issues, we must work to build appropriate manpower, political acumen and contacts to ensure that justice in our case is upheld.

  7. David, you say: “Dr. Libaridian has written at least one article in a Turkish journal that fuzzes up the Armenian genocide”. “Fuzzing up the Armenian genocide” is a pretty serious charge. You should give us the specific reference so that we can judge for ourselves, otherwise it is innuendo.

  8. What did Dr. Libaridian actually say at the conference? I would like to know. Was he hard-hitting? I wonder.

    Moreover:

    1. Armenians are suspicious, as they should be, of Armenian scholars who do not take a tough stance on the Genocide in general. I think that is a lot of what is going on here.
    2. There were Armenians, if I recall correctly, that were hardliners who attended and spoke at the conference. Maybe that is OK. I don’t know. But Dr. Libaridian is not a hardliner. That makes all the difference.
    3. The fact that scholars of non-Armenian heritage attended the conference does not mean much. They need to “publish or perish” as the saying goes in academia. They don’t care where they publish. Also, they want an all-expenses paid vacation in Tblisi. Yes, a vacation. Who wouldn’t?
    4. Univ. of Utah is pro-Turkish. This conference seems to me, especially as it was co-sponsored by Turks, to have been a cover for genocide denialism and a quest for its legitimacy. The title of the conference is one of those made-up titles to give academicians something to do. Maybe the U.S. was really behind the conference. Maybe Turkey was. Maybe some third country that has close relations with Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan was behind the conference?
    5. Finally, no, I do not trust some of the Turkish academicians who have acknowledged or quasi-acknowledged the genocide. I think they have sucked Armenian scholars into an unending debate about why the dear Turks, who really were darlings supposedly, got nervous during WW 1, and – oh my goodness – decided to do something dreadful to Armenians. In other words, ordinarily fine people (Turks) did something bad only because they had anxiety about Armenians. Poor Turks. They were victims too. See?

  9. I don’t know if anyone remembers, but years ago, during the Kocharyan years, there was an article on Armenia’s Foreign Ministry website, authored by Libaridian and written even earlier, probably around 1989. It gave a history of Artsakh and stated that its population consisted of Armenianized natives rather than native Armenians. I wondered whether anyone in the Armenian Foreign Ministry even read it. At some point it was taken down.

    Libaridian has always held positions that did not conform to the mainstream Armenian narrative. Which is probably why he was chosen to serve in Levon’s administration, given its cosmopolitan, less nationalist, and more diverse atmosphere there (some would say treasonous, anti-Armenian).

  10. File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg
    Would we go into an argument of whether the earth is round or flat?
    perhaps we’d ask Sarah Palin … I can understand professor Libaridian’s argument fully… being born in Istanbul and having many denialist friends of Armenian Genocide …yet number 12 above states it however these progressive friends do not represent the consensus yet we do not go into regressive elements… Turkey today is evolving and enlightening with their current issues which is Kurdish and middle class youth “Gezi park” which is very instrumental to endorse Armenian genocide . We do not have to rely to rhetorical of old fashion diplomacy any more…! If we had a mind like Hannah Arendt imagine what she would have said today on our plight! Think about it!

  11. After reading the earlier articles on this issue as well as the above responses by Weekly editorial staff to Libaridian’s article I am reminded of an overzealous high school kid trying to “deconstruct” an argument by using self-promoting, quasi journalistic and pseudo-academic methods. While there are few points made that I might agree with it seems that there are far more issues with this response that undermine the Weekly’s attempts to become a forum for journalism and make it more of a vendetta machine with a narrow focus on issues.
    1. First off it is interesting to know when was the article by Libaridian submitted? In the piece above it is mentioned that he had contacted the Weekly in early June, yet this is published at the end of July. Was the newspaper waiting to write their response before publishing Libaridian’s article? If so, doesn’t that go against the nature of journalistic ethics? It seems that the Weekly editorial team is unwilling or unable to accept criticism or making it public unless they prepare for it beforehand.
    2. The lack of understanding of issues and dealing in absolutes is endemic and problematic to most Armenian institutions and in this case the Weekly as well. In point 2 of the article above and in the previous articles on this issues, lack of journalistic professionalism is apparent. There are articles in newspapers which report on issues, and there are opinion pieces. However when opinions are presented as reports then it becomes a serious violation of journalistic ethics. Did the weekly editorial staff who first published the news on this conference, contact any of the participants of the conference (or perhaps even TCA) and ask them the reasons behind organizing such a conference? If so why wasn’t it reflected in any of the pieces? If not, then the approach utilized by the Weekly is very similar to the way Fox news “reports” the news.
    3. In the 4th point of the article above, the arguments made by Libaridian about including other scholars with different opinions in the debate and reading Weekly’s response to it where it is mentioned that there are two sides of the argument, I cannot but think of the absolutism of “you’re either with me or against me” so prevalent during the Bush years. Isn’t it possible to find scholars who disagree with both arguments put forward by the Weekly and Libaridian, or perhaps agree with some points each side is making? The same comment applies to the 7th point where the issue is presented as a dichotomy: either help denialists disappear or “embrace” them. Isn’t there a third or a fourth or a fifth alternative for dealing with denialists?
    4. In point 12 an argument is made that the Weekly provides a forum to reflect the complexities of Turkey and Turkish society, yet as far as I’ve read, all of the writers published in the Weekly pages are members of a courageous yet very small minority of the Turkish society.
    5. Finally couple of years ago, the editor of the Weekly himself took part in a visit to Turkey, funded, sponsored and organized by the Turkish state (the ultimate denier of the Genocide). Isn’t it hypocritical to utilize double standards when it comes to engaging the denialists? Or perhaps the Weekly editor feels that his credentials as an editor give him the right to get involved in such engagements but others are unable to match his “patriotism” and are blindsided by Turkish denialists.

  12. “Karin,”
    You are free to make things up and build arguments around them, but at least don’t make them so obvious. This article clearly mentions that Libaridian submitted the article in July: “This month, we received and published his six-page response, which was incidentally much longer than the articles he was responding to combined.” (Paragraph 4)

  13. “hai tahd”, mia culpa! I’m guessing that you don’t have anything else to say about my remaining arguments. and yes my name is Karin (without the quotations)

  14. David, thank you for supplying the reference. It bears out my suspicion that you were jumping the gun on imputing “fuzziness” to Jirair Libaridian’s stance on the genocide of 1915. His multiple references to genocide in his article leave no doubt about his intentions. Here is just one example out of many. To be any clearer, I guess he would have to make a spectacle of himself by marching back and forth in Times Square with a gigantic picket sign.

    The Quotation
    “The purpose of this article is not to counter the arguments of the Turkish state and associated scholars. As far as scholarship is concerned, historians, including sociolo- gists, legal scholars, genocide specialists, and myself have dealt with these arguments extensively, in detail and adequately. While much work needs still to be done in working out various dimensions, the position of the Turkish state and its official his- torians has been eroding as scholarship –not just by Armenian scholars– has left little doubt that what was done to Armenians in the Ottoman Empire either was planned as an extermination or amounted to one. In other words, that it was genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.”

  15. I have nothing to say to you, “Karin.” You showed your true colors from point 1, when you made s**t up.
    On the other hand, it is irresponsible of the Weekly to allow such comments that rely on lies. Freedom of speech does not mean tolerating lies. Unless the weekly editors would like to spend the day responding to the lies of Karins of this world–who seem to abound in this forum.
    Here’s a question to the Weekly: Had I not pointed “her” lie out, readers would have thought Karin’s first point was a very logical one. No?
    Just sayin.

  16. I remember, approximately 20 years ago, an announcement was made that deferred the Genocide to academia. Is this where the topic of Genocide belongs nowadays?

  17. I think this controversy hides something deeper. As to who among Armenians controls the Genocide narrative and therefore who can,must or is qualified to represent the Armenian case. If this is the true story then woe to us !!! No wonder why we can not establish a pan-Armenian body to manage whatever process we can agree on as a broad strategy to advance our cause : building a solid international backing for our claims and reaching a status of moral and political stature that will force Turkey to seriously consider its options for reconciliation and what follows.If after 98 years we have not reached a decent agreement among ourselves to establish a common voice and body to articulate , pursue and achieve our objectives, what difference does it make if individuals, historians, businessmen, entrepreneurs, free lancers take it upon themselves to sell their wares on the market. As an armenian individual who am I to trust and believe?

    • Is this really that hard to grasp, people? It’s about honest scholarship vs. state denial. It’s about scholars not making a joke out of their work by treating state denial as if it were scholarship. It’s about not helping to create the illusion that there’s a debate among scholars about what happened in 1915 and what to call it. It’s about having the basic decency not to go to a conference organized by a group that does everything it can to put a giant question mark over the Armenian Genocide and which sued a university that called out its denial out by name. How many more reasons are needed? 1.5 million?

  18. Why do you even talk about this person, he was worthless during LDB’s regime and did everything to get in bed with Turkey.
    Ignore him and he will go back under his rock and disappear.

  19. You lot are like a dog knawing on a dried-out bone – there is no useful nourishment there but force of habit and instinct makes you continue, regardless of its pointlessness. Who do you think has more credibility – some hack with a bugbear on a website nobody but some Armenians ever see, or a legitimate scholar read by other scholars and who engages with the wider academic community? I encourage Prof Libardian to continue to give short shift to the opinions and interests of this self-proclaimed “Armenian community”. It does not own the rights to the Armenian Genocide narritive any more than Turkey does (i.e. it does not own any of it).

  20. I agree with the author that everyone is entitled to hold his/her opinions on this subject matter. So, if as you imply, you support free expression why is it that you reprimand a scholar for participating in and expressing his/her views at this conference? Does this not squelch scholarly debate and prevent a full understanding of the complexities of the issue at hand?

  21. Dr. Libaridian did not attend the conference due to health reasons.
    All the arguments revolve around whether he should have accepted the invitation to attend. Fact is he did not attend.
    What would be interesting is what would have been his presentation if he attended.
    He has written a long winded article about his decision to attend. Now, I suggest he publishes ( May be the AW can do that) what he was going to say at the conference. The original unedited version. Then we can make a judgement on whether his participation would have been beneficial or helping the denialists.
    It’s simple. Publish his paper.
    Vart Adjemian

  22. Steve
    You seem not to know, or not wanting to know, anything about the professional lying industry of the denialist Turkish state. Such conferences as the one in question in which “legitimate scholars read other scholars …”, as you naively put it, are part and parcel of that industry. And yes, Armenian communities anywhere are entitled to scrutinize those who irresponsibly lend a hand to this highly sophisticated denial machine.

    • Aarshag – anyone, anywhere, is entitled to use legitimate methods to scrutinize those who use lies and deceptions to maintain or propagate their cause. One method would be Libaridian’s – to attend conferences in which those propagating lies and deceptions also attend.
      The “Armenian communities” or “Armenian Cause” ghetto is just as full of lies and deceptions as that “denial industry” you oppose. But you think it is acceptable from your side because your “cause” is so clearly right and the other “cause” is so clearly wrong. However, everyone needs to be much more serious and move away from the narrow and self-defeating concept of “causes”: it limits the interaction to just those within the opposing “cause”. It reduces the study of the Armenian Genocide to some private argument between Turkey and Armenia – which is exactly what Turkey wants, and what Turkey has managed to get and maintain with Armenian support.

      The Armenian Genocide narrative is not owned by Armenia, or by Armenians, or by Turkey, or by Turks, or by diplomats, politicians, advisors, or self-proclaimed “experts” or “specialists”, or those running “think tanks”, “foundations”, or ngos. None of you own that history, and none of you have the right to distort it or proscribe discussion about it or dictate methodologies to others.

  23. The problem is that it appears he is not even granted the right to participate in such a conference, but he and those like him (that is those willing to discuss the issue) are pressurized against doing so.

    Thus, it is those like yourself, as well as those who try to bring down websites and block off sources offering differing perspectives, that are trying to squelch debate!

    • I think I understand now. Acknowledging his right to participate is not enough; he should be applauded for it. Those people who think differently should keep their opinions to themselves. If they voice their criticisms they will be squelching debate. Do I have it about right?

    • {“Does this not squelch scholarly debate and prevent a full understanding of the complexities of the issue at hand?”} (SusanFiona)
      {“… and block off sources offering differing perspectives, that are trying to squelch debate!”} (SusanFiona)
      .
      What “scholarly debate” ?
      What “complexities of issue at hand” ?
      What “differing perspectives” ?
      What “debate!” ?
      .
      All those expressions are code words for denying the Armenian Genocide.
      Denialists used to blanket-deny the AG years ago: that didn’t work too well, so they switched to a more sophisticated form of denial: it is now called “debate”.
      Would SusanFiona so magnanimously advocate “scholarly debate” to resolve the “complexities of issue at hand” and present “differing perspectives” regarding the Jewish Holocaust ?
      You know, maybe Nazis didn’t really murder 6 million Jews: maybe Jews murdered millions of Nazis instead.
      Or maybe Jews revolted against their benevolent Nazi hosts and were simply deported to the resort city of Dachau for their own protection, away from war zones: sadly, despite the best efforts of their benevolent Nazi safety escorts, a small number of Jews unfortunately died on the way: they were already sick and old. But far more Nazi safety escorts also died, so everybody suffered: Nazis actually suffered more.
      .
      Try to hold a public “scholarly debate” anywhere in North America, Europe, etc about the Jewish Holocaust and see what happens.

  24. I lost whatever respect I had for Jirair Libaridian back around 1985. At that time, he was invited by the Chicago ANC to debate a Turk about the 1915 Armenian Genocide on a radio program. The moderator, who began the program very sympathetic to the Armenians, gradually changed his mind as Libaridian was unable to make a cogent and airtight case that a genocide had in fact occurred! It was a debacle from beginning to end.

  25. Steve
    If “Armenian Genocide narrative is not owned by Armenia, or by Armenians, or by Turkey, or by Turks, or by diplomats, politicians, advisors, or self-proclaimed “experts” or “specialists”, or those running “think tanks”, “foundations”, or ngos….”, as you say, then I would like to hear from you the “undistorted” version, that is if you believe that there is a true version. And if there isn’t according to you, then I already know where you stand.

    • You have a great advantage over me because everything that can ever be known about the Armenian Genocide is already encoded into your DNA and you are thus able to avoid the time consuming and inconvenient process of studying, learning, and discovering. But, since you already have an “undistorted” and complete “true version” of the history of the Armenian Genocide in your own head, why ask me for it? And why not release that monumental head-stored “true version” to the whole world and save those academics who study the subject from undertaking decades of unnecessary work?

  26. Vart Adjemian is right.His”paper”, or whatever he was to come FWD with can easily be published.No need to beat around the bush and do guesswork.Personally ,I do not ,or even then-long ago*-did not place much faith in his , or his boss’s LTP diplomatic maneuvres with great Turkey.They gained nothing by their attending Gozal’s-sorry Ozal’s-burinal in Turkey either.FAct of the matter is ,now that I ‘m at it,let me say it.Latter ios bent on overshadowing and obstructing our march towards Recognition of our Genocide by their previous Govt.s aat any cost.
    One more thing,I don’t have time to write a full one here on my viewpoint on NK.Perhaps Avery or someone else will second me..as rgdd,trumptings of the NK issue rather stronlgy in the Int’l press etc., and more OSCE interventions…
    great Turkey is behind the scene enjoying it ,since this sort of prevents and or at least brakes*in the eyes of the in’tl public our JUST Demand for Justice..I MEAN OUR MAIN ISSUE,not NK.The Acknowledgment by Turkey and her so called allies the truth.

  27. Steve,
    This is what the denialist machaine aims at. Armenian Genocide is always open to debate. You can never say anything conclusive about it. Decades of research by hundreds, if not thousands of scholars and historians mean nothing. Every time there is talk of Armenian Genocide one should not dare to claim that it indeed happend. People should still await years, decades and may be centureis of research, study and investigation, which might after all reveal that something of the sort never happened. Real fallacy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*