Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
03ISTANBUL348
2003-03-14 14:08:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Consulate Istanbul
Cable title:  

TURKISH-ARMENIAN RECONCILIATION COMMISSION MEETS,

Tags:  PREL AM TU 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 000348 

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/13/2013
TAGS: PREL AM TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH-ARMENIAN RECONCILIATION COMMISSION MEETS,
CONSIDERS CHANGES


Classified By: Consul General David Arnett for Reasons 1.5 (b) and (d)


C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 000348

SIPDIS


E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/13/2013
TAGS: PREL AM TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH-ARMENIAN RECONCILIATION COMMISSION MEETS,
CONSIDERS CHANGES


Classified By: Consul General David Arnett for Reasons 1.5 (b) and (d)



1. (C) Summary: Following a March 10 meeting to review and
discuss a report it had commissioned from the International
Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ),members of the
Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) have been
unable to reach agreement on how to deal with the contentious
"genocide" issue. Moving forward, TARC may make some changes
in its composition and focus in order to overcome fundamental
differences that have hindered progress in its work to date.
End Summary.



2. (SBU) The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission
(TARC) met in London on March 10 to review and discuss the
report it had commissioned in July 2002 from the
International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). The
ICTJ report, entitled "The Applicability of the U.N.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide to Events Which Occurred During the Early Twentieth
Century," was sent to TARC members last month and has
subsequently been reprinted in the Turkish and Armenian
press. Although the ICTJ report's explicitly legal nature
and narrow focus dramatically limit its implications, the
simple fact that both the Armenian and Turkish members of
TARC agreed to commission the ICTJ report is a positive
development. The first half of the report indicates that "no
legal, financial, or territorial claim arising out of the
Events could successfully be made against any individual or
state under the Convention." But the report continues in the
second half to note that the Events themselves could be said
"to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as
defined in the Convention" (in other words, that the term
"genocide" can be applied to tragedy that befell the
Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire).



3. (U) The report has not received significant attention in
the Turkish press. Former Ambassador and TARC member Gunduz
Aktan has publicly expressed his concern that the ICTJ's
conclusions might be taken out of context and interpreted as
a judgment on the Events themselves rather than a legal
opinion on the applicability of a legal definition. He and
others have commented that because the term "genocide," as
legally defined by the Convention, can be applied to any
number of ethnic clashes, it has lost all practical meaning.



4. (C) On March 12, former Turkish Ambassador (also President
of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation) Ozdem
Sanberk and Sabanci University Professor and former
Bosphorous University Rector Ustun Erguder (both TARC
members) told poloff separately that the March 10 meeting had
gone reasonably well. Over the course of past meetings,
Sanberk and Erguder said that interpersonal dynamics between
the Turkish and Armenian participants have been good,
although they continue to have fundamental differences on the
key issue of "genocide." (Note and Comment: Erguder had
earlier remarked to poloff that "one particular Turkish
member" had been offended and upset by the exchanges during
one of the sessions and that this had led to a long pause in
the TARC's activities. Based on Erguder's comments, poloff
believes that he may have been referring to Gunduz Aktan.
End Note and Comment.) Sanberk reported that there had been
"total disagreement," for example, on the ICTJ report,
particularly its second half. Erguder told poloff that he
personally had found the ICTJ report to be fair and balanced,
but confirmed, however, that the only aspect the Commission
could agree on was to put the report behind them. Looking
forward, Sanberk and Erguder said that the TARC will continue
its work, but that there was a possibility that there might
be partial, or even total, changes in both the Armenian and
Turkish sides of the Commission. Erguder added that he had
suggested that TARC abandon the "genocide" issue for now and
focus instead on promoting other people-to-people and civil
society activities. He claimed that Armenian Assembly of
America Chairman Van Krikorian reacted favorably to this
proposal.



5. (C) Comment: The TARC has had a rocky and difficult road,
particularly in weathering criticism from the Armenian
diaspora. Sanberk and Erguder claim from their personal
experience that Turks have been far less critical than
Armenians of the TARC. However, TARC's work is not widely
followed in Turkey. At the same time, we are beginning to
hear such criticism in Istanbul as well. Most recently, for
example, Kaan Soyak (please protect),the President of the
Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council (a commercial
group that also promotes people-to-people and commercial
activities),told poloff on March 8 that his contacts in both
the Armenian and Turkish communities are fed up with TARC and
are eager for "a new approach."
ARNETT