Iran, Armenian genocide, etc.

Mulling over Mullahs

Taken together, William Kristol's, Thomas McInerney's, and Reuel Marc Gerecht's approaches to "the Iran question" are logically unassailable ("Unacceptable?" "Target: Iran," and "To Bomb, or Not to Bomb," respectively, April 24). There is much talk about whether "we" are right to put the "military option" on the table, but the truth is the responsibility lies with the Iranian mullahs. It is they who have introduced the "destroy Israel" and the "uranium enrichment" options. Only the mullahs can take those options away, but at this point they seem hellbent on their drive to war and destruction. Unacceptable? Precisely! And supporters of the war on terrorism should eagerly engage, rather than avoid, this urgent debate.

Steve Beren
Seattle, Wash.

Talking Turkey

Contrary to what Ellen Bork suggests ("The Price of Denial," April 17), there is a healthy and robust debate within Turkey on the Ottoman Armenian tragedy. In contrast, here in the United States, Armenian activists have been largely successful in preventing any real debate on this historic controversy. The recent cancellations of an academic forum on Turkish-Armenian relations at the University of Southern California and of the airing of a PBS panel discussion program on this very question are low points for those who seek a fair and honest accounting of this sad chapter of history. It is hypocritical to criticize Turkey when the debate here is less open and more exposed to political pressure.

Genocide is arguably the most odious of crimes, but in a democracy the accused reserves the right to present a defense. In this case the verdict has been handed down without due process, while pleas for a fair trial fall on deaf ears. Although a legal case has never been made, the history of the matter is also by no means settled. The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, a recent book by eminent scholar Guenter Lewy, concludes that the history of this matter is incomplete and overly politicized.

Only through dialogue can Turks and Armenians reach a mutual understanding about their common history. Stifling debate and perpetuating a unilaterally established orthodoxy may be expedient, but it will not bring about closure. Turkish prime minister Erdogan last year proposed the establishment of a joint historical commission with Armenia on this matter. If the goal is really to bring about reconciliation, we should support this historic initiative.

Nabi Sensoy
Ambassador of Turkey to the United States
Washington, D.C.

Ellen Bork responds: Ambassador Sensoy may be just doing his job as a representative of Turkey when he asserts that compared with the United States his country has a healthy and robust debate about the Armenian genocide. Provisions of the new Turkish penal code prohibiting insults against the state and "Turkishness" and attempts to influence court proceedings have been used against authors, journalists, and publishers who mention the deaths of over one million Armenians under the Ottoman empire. It is difficult to see how any initiative of the Turkish government to deal with its history, including the one Ambassador Sensoy promotes, could be sincere so long as the law prohibits truthful discussion.

Suckers

Edward Short is confused on two counts in "Owzat, you say?" (April 24). First, when the Brits turn their clocks one hour ahead each spring, the result is "British Summer Time." When Yanks do likewise, the result is "Daylight Saving Time." This has nothing to do with Gershwin's reference to "summertime." Second, growing up in my neck of the woods (Pittsburgh), anyone referring to candy on a stick as a "lollipop" rather than a "sucker" would have received a severe ear bashing.

Mike Vita
Alexandria, Va.

UNITED NATIONS

IT IS APPARENTLY not enough for Anne Bayefsky ("Another U.N. 'Reform,'" April 17) that the United States put itself on the losing side of a 170-4 General Assembly vote creating a new U.N. Human Rights Council. Now she would reverse the U.S. pledge to support the new council by walking away and creating a separate body of countries she felt had the true commitment to human rights.

Just who would follow the United States off such a cliff? Virtually all of America's democratic allies--the European Union, Japan, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the many Latin American democracies--voted to establish the new U.N. council, and many of them are running for election to it. A human rights body limited to the United States and the three countries that joined the it in the General Assembly vote would be a laughingstock, not a credible alternative.

The new council has guidelines to promote membership for countries with better records and procedures designed to improve working methods and allow more sustained and even-handed attention to human rights problems. It needs the active support and guidance of all countries that support human rights to get a good start. Having participated for almost 60 years in the old and now discredited Commission on Human Rights, why would the U.S. not work to make the new body more effective? Bayefsky's rush-to-judgment is baffling, as is her desire to further separate the United States from its closest democratic allies.

LAWRENCE C. MOSS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH NEW YORK, N.Y.