US embassy cable - 03ANKARA2420

C O N F I D E N T I A L ANKARA 002420 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/11/2013 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, TU 
SUBJECT: TURKEY-ARMENIA: EMBASSY RECOMMENDS NO USG 
STATEMENT ON TARC HISTORICAL STUDY 
 
(U) Classified by Ambassador W.R. Pearson.  Reasons: 
1.5(b)(d). 
 
 
1. (U) Action recommendation--paras 5-6. 
 
 
2. (C) Embassy Ankara understands that the Department may be 
considering issuing a statement noting the conclusions 
reached by an ICTJ panel, meeting under Turkish-Armenian 
Reconciliation Committee (TARC) auspices March 10, regarding 
the legal applicability of the term "genocide" to the World 
War One-era massacres of Armenians by elements of the Ottoman 
Empire. 
 
 
3. (C) Both Embassy and ConGen Istanbul have looked carefully 
into the facts concerning the TARC's deliberations.  As we 
understand it from multiple Turkish interlocutors, there was 
considerable disagreement between the Turkish and Armenian 
sides and unhappiness on the Turkish side over the way TARC 
handled the report. 
 
 
4. (C) The Turks see the report as clearly overstepping its 
narrow mandate.  Rather than confining itself to questions 
surrounding the legal applicability of the term "genocide," 
the TARC report delved into issues of historical 
applicability as well.  As a result, the Turks, both 
panelists and the MFA, have no objection to the first part of 
the report, which deals with the legal issues -- particularly 
since it clearly states that the UN Convention cannot be 
applied retroactively and that there can be no collective 
responsibility.  However, they reject the report's treatment 
of historical matters as beyond the scope of the ICTJ and 
lacking in depth. 
 
 
------------------------------------ 
Post's Conclusion and Recommendation 
------------------------------------ 
 
 
5. (C) Washington can best judge the equities here.  If there 
is no requirement for the USG to endorse a statement of a 
private group, our choice would be to avoid it.  We have so 
far managed the considerable tensions in the Armenian Turkish 
Track II process well by reminding everyone that the effort 
is non-governmental.  Mixing the two Tracks, even once, will 
leave them intertwined.  If there should be a statement, our 
preference would be after April 24.  Perhaps there are some 
salon intellectuals in Istanbul or retired diplomats with 
contacts with this group who do not object to a pre-April 24 
statement, but these people have no connection and no 
influence whatsoever on GOT thinking or reactions.  Following 
their line on Iraq and Cyprus, these people might even be 
happy to have the AK Party embarrassed or cornered on the 
Armenian issue.  If there is to be a statement and it is to 
be before April 24, we recommend that Ambassador Logoglu be 
briefed in advance and that we receive the cleared press 
guidance well in advance.  We appreciate the opportunity to 
provide our views. 
PEARSON