I must say I was not surprised when I read Charles Tannock's article ("Turkey, Armenia and the heavy burden of memories," April 23, page 9), since it contained the usual one-sided and unfounded allegations by the Armenians.
After reading the article I felt that the readers of the Taipei Times had to learn the truth about these allegations.
Armenians were a favored minority in the Ottoman Empire and occupied the commanding heights of the civil service and the economy.
With the guidance and encouragement from the enemies of the Ottoman Empire, Armenian extremists hoping to gain independence began a series of terrorist attacks against Ottoman Muslims in the late 1800s. The terrorism was intended to provoke an over-reaction by the Ottoman rulers and the intervention of European powers.
So even before World War I commenced, the Armenians declared war against the empire -- a classic case of treason.When the war broke out and the men were in the battlefield fighting against the invading countries, Armenians who sided with the enemy attacked the cities and villages, killing innocent women and children left behind. These uprisings took place in the eastern region of the country which consequently facilitated the enemy's job.
This led the Ottoman authorities to warn the Armenian leaders that they would be forced to take drastic measures if the situation continued. Unfortunately these warnings had no effect on the Armenians, forcing the Turkish authorities in 1915 to call for the relocation of Armenians living in the war zones away from the front lines and into other parts of Ottoman territory, certainly not with the intent to annihilate the Armenians, but because the government had no other possible choice, since it was engaged in a life-and-death situation.
Today the Turkish government accepts the fact that many Armenians, Turks and other civilians died during this time of relocation due to harsh weather and wartime conditions, as well as diseases. However, this is by no means an act of genocide. If any genocide was committed it was by the Armenians themselves, who slaughtered over 500,000 innocent, defenseless women, children and elderly. Today more than 200 mass graves of Turkish civilians killed by the Armenians in the areas where the uprisings took place have been uncovered and many more mass graves are waiting to be discovered, proving to the world the inhumane acts committed by the Armenians.
Today, because the Armenian allegations lack the support of academic research, the Armenians attempt to legislate their version of history by lobbying parliaments -- where they have influence over the local politicians -- to pass resolutions recognizing their allegations. The European Parliament is a case in point. Instead of backing their allegations with credible documents, they choose to harass, threaten and commit outright attacks against prominent scholars such as Bernard Lewis and Stanford Shaw of UCLA, who independently and objectively research these Armenian claims.
Recently, in order to bring an end to these allegations, the Turkish government once again invited the Armenian authorities to open their archives, like it has done, and allow historians both from the Armenian side and the Turkish side to carry out research on these archives. Historians of both sides coming together to view these documents and debate the issue would be the best way to solve this problem. Since history should be left to historians.
Unfortunately, the Armenian authorities have rejected the offer Turkey has made, an offer which gives them a great chance to prove such allegations. The Armenian authorities' refusal to open their archives and defend their allegations shows that they have no clear evidence that an act of genocide took place against them.
Burak Gursel
Representative of the Turkish Trade Office in Taipei
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS