1986_02 Hye Sharzhoom Newspaper February 1986

              Page 8
Hye Sharzhoom
February 1986
State Dept. report draws criticism
Editor's note: Thefollowing two critiques were written on Armenian Terrorism:
A Profile, a U. S. State Department report. The report reflects the official position
of the State Department towards such Armenian militant groups as the Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASA LA) and the Justice Commandos
of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG). The report is important in that it not only
addresses these militant organizations but the Armenian Question and Genocide of
1915. These critiques are two of many written in Armenian Studies 120 T,a course
on Armenian political violence offered during the Fall 1985 semester.
By Zepur Aristakessian
Contributing Writer
Although Armenian Terrorism: A
Profile by Andrew Corsun in the August
1982 issue of the Department of State
Bulletin is full of distortions and misrepresentations, I will discuss only a few
examples.
In the second paragraph of the introduction, Corsun states that "By resorting
to terrorism, Armenian extremists were
able to accomplish in 7 years what legitimate Armenian organizations have been
trying to do for almost 70 years—internationalize the Armenian cause." This
statement suggests that Armenians have
tried to use other nonviolent methods to
find a solution for their cause, and that
terrorism was one of their last resorts.
Later, however, he "... wonder(s) why
Armenian extremists have waited over 60
years to carry out their armed struggle."
First he tells his readers the results of
terrorism, and then he turns around and
wonders why they use terror.
One of the ways that Corsun distorts or
misrepresents reality is by manipulating
language. For example, he states, "Terrorism is an effective tactic in evoking
international sympathy for a previously
unknown (or forgotten) cause..." Following that statement he refers to ASALA
and JCAG and asks how many have heard
about them. He puts it in such a manner
as though the previously unknown/forgotten cause is synonymous with ASALA
and JCAG and their recognition. The fact
is that ASALA and JCAG use terrorism
to make their cause—that is, the Genocide
and all of its related factors—known to
the world; their own recognition is incidental to their goals.
Corsun seems to justify the genocide.
Following his reference to the "... alleged
... first 'genocide' of the 20th century ...",
he infers that Armenians in Turkey were
traitors because they refused to help the
Turkish government during World War I,
and because "Turkey viewed this attitude
(the refusal of the Armenians to take
sides) as treasonous ...". This seems to
suggest that because Armenians were
struggling for autonomy and were encouraged by the principle of self-determination, they were against the government and therefore it was "o.k." to
eliminate them.
Both ASALA and JCAG struggle for
Armenian liberation, though they espouse
different ideologies. Corsun takes this
difference and exaggerates it to a point
such that ASALA's only objective is the
spread of Marxism and the destruction of
imperialism. He uses excerpts from
ASALA communiques such as this:
Let imperialism and its collaborators all over the
world know that their institutions are targets for
our heroes and will be destroyed. We will kill and
destroy because that is the only language understood by imperialism.
By quoting only part of the communique,
especially the part that implies what he
wants it to imply, he takes the statement
out of context and distorts its intended
message. I believe the goal of his
exaggeration is to make the reader think
that Armenians are using a major "allegation" (i.e., the genocide) to achieve
different objectives (e.g., Marxism). In
addition, Corsun states that "... both
groups share a common bond, yet they are
quite different when it comes to achieving
their goals ..." He does not discuss what
the "common bond" is, but he heavily
emphasizes and discusses in detail what
the "differences" are.
The misrepresentations of the article
are indeed frustrating; however, what's
even more irritating is the note at the end
of the article. It states that the "historical
events of the 1915 events in Asia Minor
are ambiguous ..."and that the Armenian
terrorists "use this allegation to justify ..."
their attacks. The State Department thus
does not admit that the Turkish government committed a genocide against the
Armenian people.
The State Department doesn't need to
go very far to clear the "ambiguity" that it
has created because the historical events
are not ambiguous at all. All it has to do is
to look at issues of The New York Times
and other newspapers published in 1915.
Since the State Department is not willing
to admit that the Turkish government had
committed the genocide, it is changing the
factual statements of the terrorists into
"allegations". The simple fact is that the
State Department does not want to admit
the facts because Turkey is a U.S. ally and
both nations need each other to further
destroy more people and land, and eventually the entire planet
J. Michael Hagopian
highlights film class
Over 30 students were treated to several
Armenian films during a two day course
offered by the Armenian Studies Program
.£*• of California State University, Fresno.
Armenian Experience through Film, conducted by Armenian Studies Program
Coordinator Dr. Dickran Kouymjian and
Armenian Film Foundation Chairman J.
Michael Hagopian, featured works that
were produced, written, or directed by
Armenians.
The class was the last in a series of Fall
weekend courses, which also included
Armenian Political Violence and The
Armenian Church.
During the first session Dr. Kouymjian
discussed the beginnings and genres of
Armenian film. Kouymjian, who was a
close friend of William Saroyan, also
introduced some of Saroyan's short stories
and plays that were later adapted for
movie and television. In addition to
Saroyan's The Christmas Tie, The Man in
the Cool, Cool Moon, and his Pulitzer
Prize winning The Time of Your Life,
Soviet Armenian films Bebo and Zeenvore
yev Peeghe ("The Soldier and the Elephant") were shown.
Producer-director and former Fresnan,
J. Michael Hagopian led the final session
of class. Most of the day was spent
viewing such films as Strangers in a
Promised Land, a movie filmed in the San
Joaquin Valley, and A Century of Silence,
a film about Native Americans. Between
movies, Hagopian commented on the films
as well as on recent productions of the
Armenian Film Foundation.
Since 1980/1 the A.F.F. has undertaken
a project to document the accounts of the
last living survivors of the 1894-1923
Genocide through the medium of film.
Hagopian is presently producing two
films— Witnesses and an Australian based
film—which are comprised of interviews
of  Armenians   who  experienced   the
By Edna J. Vetter
Contributing Writer
Because of assigned space limitations
for this paper, I will confine my observations to only two of the possible
problems—one minor, one,major—contained in the article, Armenian Terrorism:
A Profile, as issued by the United States
Department of State. The first will deal
with what may be termed "buzzwords",
the use of which sets up a predetermined
belief in the reader's mind. The second
will focus on the adroit "sin of omission"
tactic used when supposedly stating historical facts.
Our criminal justice system presupposes
that anyone accused of a crime is innocent
until proven guilty. Because of this
constraint, our newspapers and radio and
television stations always refer to a defendant as the "alleged" murderer, rapist, or
whatever. Over the years the citizenry has
become accustomed to associate this word
with a clear possibility of innocence. It is
interesting that throughout the article the
author uses the term "alleged" whenever
he refers to the events of 1915 i'p Turkey.
The implication, of course, is that these
events have not been proven.
In today's world the word genocide has
a clearcut meaning—the attempt to obliterate an entire race of people from the
face of the earth. The use of the word
conjures in the minds of most people
events of unspeakable horror. The author
of the article does use the word. He uses it
correctly within the context of the sentence.
However, by one small addition, he
manages to cast doubt on what he has
written. By the simple expedient of
enclosing the word in quotation marks, he
has effectively rendered the word suspect
and, consequently, even though the word
has been used, the meaning has been
subtly changed.
The use of these words in the way
described, misleading as it is, is of minor
importance when compared to the omission of vital historical facts. Two examples
will be given.
The first example goes back to the time
after World War I. The author states
categorically that Armenian extremists,
with the approval of Dashnaktsoutypun,
executed "those Ottoman leaders they
believed responsible for the 'genocide' of
the Armenian people." Missing from the
report is the information that these leaders
were tried by courts-martial and found
guilty. It was only because they had fled
and were beyond the reach of the law that
the Armenians took justice into their own
hands. That this was not viewed as totally
reprehensible at the time is the fact that
one of the assassins, Soghomon Tehlirian,
was subsequently tried and acquitted.
Without this information the reader is left
with the conclusion that this was a wanton
act of retribution beyond any possible
basis in law. To keep from the reader this
mitigating piece of evidence can only be
termed an inexcusable example of misdirection.
The State Department report included
a history of the Turkish/ Armenian conflict. Also included is an admission by the
author of Ottoman responsibility for
Armenian deaths in 1895 and 1909.
According to the report, Armenian nationalism is to blame. Except to point out
that Turkish responsibility is recognized,
it is not within the scope of this paper to
argue the correctness of the view. The
interpretation of the 1.5 million deaths in
1915 is.
With a remarkable economy of words
the author acknowledges the Turkish mass
deportation'order in 1915 and notes it was
"alleged" these deaths occurred "on the
journey". That is all. There is nothing
here to lead a reader with no access to
other information except this report to
suspect that there is another side to the
story. All handouts (given in class), with
one exception, which give that other side,
are in some way directly connected with
the Armenians themselves. That exception
was the Time Magazine article of August
23,1982. Without apology this article not
only agrees with the occurrence of genocide
(no quotation marks here), but describes
in detail the horrors committed against
the Armenian people. It is a shame our
own State Department could not have
been as truthful. Why were they not?
That, too, is beyond the scope of this
paper.
J. Michael Hagopian conducted the final session of the film course. Among the many
films he presented were Strangers in a Promised Land and Witnesses.
massacres.
The films feature survivors from many
regions of Armenian who recount the
1894-6,1909 Adana,and 1915 massacres.
These testimonies are evidence that the
massacres were widespead in both time
and space, and support the view that the
murder of 1.5 million Armenians was a
systematic effort made by the Turkish
government to eliminate the Armenians
from their historic homeland.
Hagopian said he would like to interview
Greeks and Turks who witnessed the
Genocide for the completed versions. He
doubts, however, whether any Turks
would be willing to agree to such an
interview.