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) 
 
 
¶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