The Hamburg Express. Local news for an international community.

Columns

Written by berridge
Saturday, 27 September 2008
So far, neither the German Parliament nor the German Government has recognised the crimes committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as Genocide.However, on the 21^st April 2005 the German Parliament paid its respects to the victims of the crimes committed by the Ottoman Empire. The main opposition party at the time, the Christian Democrats, had moved a motion to pay respects to the victims of the Turkish atrocities, mainly Armenians but also Greeks and Albanians. The Parliamentary factions even agreed upon a common resolution and this resolution was unanimously passed in June 2005; strangely the word Genocide was conveniently avoided.The main concern for the German parliamentarians was again not the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, but the reconciliation of Turks and Armenians. Already in the second paragraph Johannes Lepsius was explicitly praised for his engagement for the Armenians. The plan of turning Lepsius´s house in Potsdam into a memorial to his work was hinted at, in this passage of the resolution: “Especially the work of Dr Johanes Lepsius who energetically and effectively campaigned for the survival of the Armenians should not be forgotten and with the aim of improving the relationship between Armenians, Germans and Turks should be maintained and tended to.” At the same, it has been proven that Germany indeed carries a considerable burden of guilt for the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, it is also well-known that Johannes Lepsius, the Evangelical theologian and apparent friend of the Armenians, was a German Nationalist and supporter of the German Kaiser’s expansionist policy. He despised the Turks and was like many Germans of the time an anti –Semitic. In July 2008 the Parliamentary faction of the German Socialist Die Linke, asked for more information in the form of a Parliamentary question regarding the founding of the Memorial House in Potsdam: 35 kilometres from the German Reichstags building in Berlin. Die Linke expressed doubts concerning the suitability of the Lepsius House as a place where “the relationship between Armenians, Germans and Turks could be improved”. Die Linke reminded the Parliament that the collection of official documents published by Johannes Lepsius in 1919 in connection with the Armenian Genocide contained openly manipulated documents. It can be assumed that not only was Lepsius involved but also the Foreign Office. As at the end of the war Germany was concerned about being appropriate blame for the Armenian Genocide. Therefore in 1919, in order to diffuse the criticism before the Peace negotiations, the German Foreign Office gave Lepsius the task of publishing the German documents related to the Armenian Genocide.Lepsius was seen as a staunch friend of the Armenians and also enjoyed good standing abroad, therefore his work came under less public scrutiny and was accepted if not entirely believed. Unfortunately, the true reason behind Lepsius publishing his collection of documents was simply to deflect blame for the Genocide away from the German military and Emperor Williams Government. As a German Nationalist Lipsius certainly did not want Germany’s participation to become known, his task was to select documents in such a way as to prove that onlythe Turkish Government carried out the deportations and the annihilation of the Armenians. Today the Foreign Office still refuses to accept responsibility for the manipulations, but does not deny that documents in Lepsius´s publication were manipulated. This dual position is a common acrobatic feat of diplomatic departments worldwide and therefore the following statement should come as no surprise. “Lepsius´s publication, “Germany and Armenia 1914-1918” is considered to be manipulated”. With this statement the German government has for the first time admitted what journalist and publisher Wolfgang Gust had discovered many years before.Moreover, the Government officially declared that the collection of documents published in 2005 by Wolfgang Gust was based on documents which had been kept undisclosed in the political archive of the Foreign Office. This official statement is especially important as Wolfgang Gust in contrast to Johannes Lepsius examined the role of Germany in the Armenian Genocide with an open and critical eye. This made him very few new friends in certain circles which preferred not to have Germany involved in another Genocide. Three years after the German parliaments resolution the German Government still avoids using the word Genocide in any of its statements, preferring formulations such as “tragic event”or “historical tradegy”.The position of the Foreign Office was made clear in the last paragraph of the statement in answer to the Links Parliamentary question. “The German Government believes that the historical confrontation with the events from 1915 to 1917 is the primary concern of the countries involved; Turkey and Armenia.” (This is an indirect denial of Germany’s role in the atrocities, despite evidence found in the Foreign Office archives to the contrary.) In the USA and France such a statement from a leading Parliamentarian or Government Minister would more likely have led to strong protests and letters to the editor from the organized Armenian community. Armenian Organisations are working all over the world to ensure the official recognition of the Armenian Genocide delivering facts to those Governments which still are hesitant in recognising the brutal events as Genocide. In view of this, the reaction of the Armenian organisation in Germany, where after France the most Armenians live within the EU, is unexplainable.The “Central Council of Armenians in Germany” in its wisdom did not criticise the scandalous statement of the German government but criticised the Linken for posing the question.For the “Central Council” it was of little consequence that the German government used words gleaned from Turkish propaganda material, such as “tragic event” or that “the evaluation of the events should be left to historians”.Moreover, they raised no voice of criticism that the word “Genocide” was again left unmentioned in an official government statement dealing with the annihilation of Armenians within the Ottoman Empire.One really has to question their priorities and indeed their loyalities.

A Turkish Dilema

Written by berridge
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Up until a month ago it seemed that the Turkish political strategy in the South-Caucuses had made vital progress. As on the 24^th July the presidents of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey officially inaugurated the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad, which on completion will provide the first rail link between the three countries. Construction of the of a $422 million railway line linking Turkey to Georgia and Azerbaijan will replace a line that previously connected Azerbaijan and Turkey via Armenia. Construction of the line from Tbilisi to the Turkish border began in November 2007 and is scheduled for completion in 2010. “Our joint projects prove that regional cooperation will continue. This will connect people, increase prosperity and promote peace in the region” Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said during the ceremony. The Georgian President was certainly not thinking of the Armenians as he spoke these words. The rail connection from Kars over Tiflis to Baku is extremely important especially for Aserbaidschan and Turkey. Through the creation of this rail connection not only will economic activity be encouraged between the two countries but it will also ease the military supply logistics for Aserbaidschan´s military machine which has over the years been spending vast amounts of oil revenues on weaponry. In the case of war with Armenia the supply of arms from Turkey would be quicker and easier and therefore the military importance of the Kars-Tiflis-Baku railway should not be underestimated. To isolate Armenia in the region even further and to prevent any economic development Turkey, Aserbaidschan and Georgia have been carrying out a common strategy for years. The construction of the oil pipeline from Baku over Tiflis to the oil terminal on the Turkish Mediterranean coast was the first step on this isolation course against Armenian. The importance of the pipeline to Turkey and Aserbaidschan can be seen by the following facts.The $4 billion BTC pipeline can pump up to a million barrels per day from fields in the Azeri sector of the Caspian Sea to the Ceyhan port on the Turkish Mediterranean coast, this is equivalent to more than 1 percent of world supply. The first oil was pumped into the 1,100 mile (1,770 kilometer) pipeline, operated by the British oil giant BP, in Baku on May 10, 2005, reaching Ceyhan on May 28, 2006. A 249km (154mile) stretch of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline runs through Georgia and parts of the pipeline lie just 55km from South Ossetia. In 2007 BTC fees generated $25.4 million in transit revenues and Saakashvili’s government estimated transit payments for 2008 at about $45 million whereas Turkey has received $2.6 billion in income since the opening of the line.Following the path of the oil pipeline one can see that a shorter route would have been through Armenia. It is also not just coincidence that the pipeline avoids the eastern parts of Turkey which have a Kurdish majority population. Nevertheless, the Kurdish workers party PKK is still in the position to carry out armed attacks in all of the Eastern Turkish regions. Just a few weeks ago on 5th August, there was an explosion and subsequent fire on a section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline running through eastern Turkey, resulting in the disruption of oil flows. On 7^th August the People’s Defence Force (HPG), the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), claimed responsibility for the explosion carried out by one of its units. The closure of BTC is costing Turkey $300,000 a day in lost transit revenue. After the construction of the BTC Pipeline the next major project began. Namely, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad and work started on the line from Tbilisi to the Turkish border in November 2007. The isolation policy against Armenia has been perfectly implemented and the negative effects on the economy can be clearly seen. Any hope of the re-opening of the railway line from Russia over Abkhazia and Georgia to Armenia have been dashed and as long as there is no lasting solution to the conflict between Abkhazia and Georgia the chances of the line ever being opened again are minimal. This means that for the immediate future Armenia will have to rely on the Georgian harbours, resulting in not just extremely higher transport costs due to inflated transit fees but also an ever increasing political dependence on Georgia. One thing is clear, Turkey has no interest in a solution to the Abkhazian conflict “a la Georgia” for two reasons. After the Russian-Turkish war in the 19^th century, the Caucasus came under Russian control and influence. A part of the Muslim population moved to the Ottoman territory as they did not want to live under the Christian-Russian rule. Many descendants of these Caucasian refugees still live in Turkey and play in part a significant political role. Their sympathy lies with the Abkhazians who are campaigning for their independence. For the Turkish government it is important that the Georgian regime remains dependent on Turkey. The economic, political and also military dependence of Georgian on Turkey will enable Turkey to continue its Isolation policy of Armenia. This automatically means the support for Azerbaijan and its own anti-Armenian policy. This situation also offers Georgia an economic advantage as most of the goods sent to Armenia have to go through a Georgian harbour and then by road to Armenia. Turkey has also been expanding its trading ties and consequent influence with Georgia over the last decade. Over the last five years, annual bilateral trade between the two countries has grown from $240 million to around $800 million. Today Turkey is Georgia's largest trade partner, followed by Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Military support for Georgia has also been forthcoming. In 2006 Turkey pledged to provide Georgia with $1.8 million in military aid. As part of the agreement, Georgian officers also began travelling to Turkey to receive military training. The decision of the Georgian regime to take military action against East Ossetia will not have been taken without informing their ally the USA as it was very likely that Russia would use their military might to counter any military attack. It can only be assumed that the USA raised no objections to the offensive and may even have encouraged Tifilis’s military adventure. Was Turkey informed of the risky impending offensive? Did Turkey know of the Georgian-American war plans? Much has been written concerning the aims and consequences of the war in South Ossetien and Georgian over the last days and weeks. Most highlight the West’s interest in retaining influence over the region where an important oil and gas pipeline lies. The motives of the Russian and Georginan governments have also been speculated about and countless theories have been put to paper. However, hardly any time has been spent on analysing the effects of the war on Turkish policy in the region. It seems that Turkey was surprised by the Georgian military offensive and have indeed little interest in any escalation in South Ossetia or Abkhazia. Turkey’s interest lies in a stabile pro-western Georgia, but at the same time is making great efforts to improve its relationship with Moscow. Over the last few years the two countries have expanded their trade with each other significantly. In the first half of 2008, trade between Russia and Turkey amounted to $20 billion, making Russia Turkey’s biggest trading partner. Much of this trade is concentrated in the energy sphere and Turkey currently imports approximately 70 percent of the natural gas they consume from the Russia. Therefore a military confrontation between Russia and Georgian is not in Turkeys interest as it has important and growing economic relations with both countries. The Erdogan Government and its allied press view the Georgian actions as endangering Turkeys South-Caucasus policy. The reaction of the Islamic orientated Turkish press shows the Georgians being made responsible for the outbreak of the war and its aftermath. The Georgian regime under Saakashvilie was labelled “facist” and their Policy against South Osstia as “chauvinistic”. „This is the end of the road for Saakashvili, whose ambitions go well beyond his political and military capabilities” prophesied a columnist in the well respected newspaper „Zaman“. Turkey’s cautious balancing act, between the American ally Georgian and Americas old cold war antagonist Russia to the North, is a sign of their clever foreign policy tactic. The well-known Jewish-Turkish businessman Sami Kohen described Ankara´s political position in the region with the following words: „The impact of the crisis in Georgia is being seen in the conduct of Turkish foreign policy. The first signs lay bare the fact that Turkey has every intention to follow its own foreign policy, prioritizing international balances and looking out for its own national interests in the face of the latest developments. Although this policy seeks to find a solution, together with the West, to the Georgian crisis, it also anticipates that Turkish diplomacy should implement its own initiatives and act differently and independently from the United States or the West, when necessary.“It will not please the American Government to find that Turkey is following its own Russian and South Caucasus foreign policy and highlights the clash of interests between Turkey and America in the region.It is clear that Turkey is one of the politcal and economic losers of the Russian-Georgian conflict.Everything that has beeen gained by the Turkish Caucus foreign policy over the last decade is now in danger of being lost. Ankara has to recognise that Russia is not prepared to give up any more influence in the region to Turkey nor America. Azerbaijan has also followed the conflict with despair as their connections to Turkey and the Georgian harbours on the Black Sea have been disrupted. Both countries now recognise how instable Georgia is and this instability and uncertain future for Georgia puts Turkey’s and Azerbaijans long term plans at risk. But one thing is certain, the Governments in Ankara and Baku will now have to re-consider how they are going to continue imposing their anti-Armenian policies.

The work of politicians

Written by berridge
Friday, 29 August 2008
So far, neither the German Parliament nor the German Government has officially recognised the crimes committed by the Turkish Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as Genocide.
Read more...

The Forgotten Genocide

Written by Robert Berridge

Monday, 28 July 2008

Politics and Reality.

Germany was very late in officially recognising the Armenian Genocide. At the beginning of 2001 the Central Committee of Armenians in Germany formally appealed to the Bundestag to recognise the Genocide. This appeal was rejected by a combination of Social Democrats, Christian Democrats and other minority parties. Only the Linke supported this appeal.

The Government admitted that they had been influenced by the Turkish Governments request not to debate the subject of Genocide in Parliament.

The German Government justified its decision by stressing that Turkey and Armenia had established a Committee for Reconciliation to reach an agreement to the Genocide question.

It was clear that Germany did not want to damage the satisfactory relationship with Turkey.

2005, the oppositional CDU /CSU surprisingly raised a question in the Bundestag in remembrance of the victims of the Armenian genocide. The then SPD and Green governing parties ere thereby put in a difficult position. They could not simply ignore the raising of this question by such an important party as the political and moral damage for the two governing parties would have been too severe.

The resolution formulated by the CDU led to a debate in the Bundestag concerning the Armenian Genocide just a few days before the 24^th of April. Members of parliament from all factions condemned the crimes of the then ruling Young Turk Government and demanded from the present Turkish Government a confrontation with their historical past. After the debate is was agreed that a resolution should be formulated and agreed upon by all factions.

This resolution was titled. „ In Memory of the Expelled and Massacred

Armenians of 1915 – Germany must contribute to the reconciliation of Turkey and Armenia”,

and was presented to Parliament in June 2005

The crimes committed were not clearly defined as Genocide in the resolution. The Bundestag condemned the “Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire, whose actions almost led to the complete annihilation of the Armenians in Anatolia.” and criticised openly the “infamous role of the German Empire, which despite the array of information sources pointing to an organised and systematic expulsion and annihilation of Armenians, did not once attempt to prevent this cruelty.”

In the resolution the German Theology Professor Dr Johannes Lepsius was expressly mentioned as he had with “vigour and efficiently fought for the survival of the Armenian people”

Lepsius had already taken interest in the fate of the Armenians during the Armenian massacres between 1892 -1894 and had since this date contributed richly in informing the German public of the persecution of the Armenians and of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. In the middle of the war he published a detailed work titled “A Report of the Condition of Armenians in Turkey”.

After the war, Lepsius published his book “Germany and Armenia 1914-1918: a Collection of Diplomatic Correspondence” Until a few years ago this was the most important source of historical German material regarding the Armenian genocide.

After the opening of the German Archives relating to this period more and more details of the Genocide became known. These details confirmed and made clear the extent to which Germany was partly to blame for the tragic and criminal events.

As the debate took place in Berlin in April 2005, the Speaker for the Greens admitted that “we not only knew, but also carry some of the blame. I would like to on behalf of my faction, and I believe for all in this Parliament, today 90 years after these terrible events, offer my apologises to the Armenian people for our complicity.”

The speaker for the SPD supported the demands of his Green colleague and insisted that an apology to the Armenian people must be part of the resolution. Two months later as the common resolution was accepted by Parliament there was no mention of the German apology to the Armenian people and no outcry to its absence.

Two years have passed since this Resolution went through the German Parliament and in the meantime has been long forgotten. Nothing more has been undertaken, since that emotional outburst of guilt in April 2005, to promote the discussion around the Armenian Genocide and its recognition.

The Resolution of June 2005 was merely a German attempt to fulfil its moral duty to the Armenian people, but nothing more. Only one of the demands contained in the Resolution of June 2005 was implemented. In honour of Johannes Lepsius, a new tourist was created in Potsdam a small city outside Berlin, whereby his home was designated as a Memorial to his Life and Works. It will be opened this December to mark his 150^th Birthday. As an ally of the Armenian people, Lepsius contributed to the Armenian cause as much as any German was in the position to and more than any other German of the time.

But only slowly is the truth behind Germanys historical role in the Ottoman drama coming to light, as the most sensitive documents had only been evaluated by a very select few.

Also Lepsius´s political aspirations, as a friend of Armenia, are coming under scrutiny which should provoke thought within the German political scene. Especially as the man who fought for the rights of Armenians and for whom a memorial is being erected in Potsdam held many undemocratic positions. He was a supporter of the German expansionist policy and an admirer of the German Emperor. Although he was certainly against the annihilation of the Armenians by the Young Turk regime, he was not opposed to their expulsion. What the German Government protested about was the manner and the murder of the deportees. Nevertheless, the diplomats were aware that the Turkish regime had no interest in allowing the Armenians to resettle in Mesopotamia: the Young Turks wanted to annihilate them.

The Links Party raised a question in the Bundestag which warned against making a memorial of Lepsius´s home in Potsdam. To honour someone in Germany who held strong nationalistic, anti-Semitic and was a dedicated supporter of Emperor Wilhelm II is a dangerous act.

The hopes raised by the Resolution of June 2005, that such a Memorial would serve in the “sense of furthering the relationship between Armenians and Turks” is now hardly realistic.

The attempt by the Christian Democrats and Church circles in Germany to resurrect Johannes Lepsius as exemplary for German humanistic thought will not succeed. Lepsius was certainly not an enemy of the Armenians but he was also not the model of the “Good German” which the authorities wish to portray him as.

A memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide is the proper thing to do, but to have it in the home of a German who admired the German Kaiser and his expansionist policies and moreover did not oppose the expulsion of the Armenians is surely the wrong place.

Latest News

Hamburg City Guide

We recommend:

Event Calendar

What's on

Classified advertisements

Free newsletter

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
29	30	31	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
29	30	31	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
29	30	31	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1