|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2015 15:00:56 GMT
 Ames Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915–1916: Documents Presented to Viscount Grey of Fallodon by Viscount Bryce [Uncensored Edition], edited and with an introduction by Ara Sarafian In 1916 the British Parliament published a “Blue Book” that identified the events of 1915–16 as a systematic effort to exterminate the Armenian people. The Blue Book has been one of the most solid and influential sources on the Armenian Genocide. A critical, uncensored edition, edited and with an introduction by Ara Sarafian, has now been published by the Gomidas Institute. Viscount James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee were commissioned to prepare the Blue Book, which is formally known as The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915–1916. Toynbee carefully compiled and verified dozens of eyewitness accounts from different parts of the Ottoman Empire. These accounts provided the basis for Bryce’s brilliant thesis on the Genocide, published while the crime was still in progress. The book includes eyewitness accounts from United States consular and missionary sources, as well as the testimony of German, Italian, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Greek, Kurdish, and Armenian witnesses. The original publication was full of blanks: the names of many people and places were obscured in order to safeguard sources still in the Ottoman Empire. The names remain obscured in facsimile editions that have been published over the years. Now Sarafian has restored the obscured names. In his introduction, Sarafian takes issue with the repeated assertions of Turkish nationalist authors, who claim that the Blue Book was a British propaganda fabrication. He demonstrates the intellectual pedigree of the work. He shows exactly how testimonies were collected, authenticated, and then used in the book. Generations of official historians of Turkey, such as Enver Zia Karal (Ankara University), Salahi Sonyel (British historian and public activist), Ismail Binark (Director of Ottoman archives, Ankara), Sinasi Orel (director of a much publicized project on declassifying documents on Ottoman Armenians), Kamuran Gurun (former diplomat), Mim Kemal Oke, Justin McCarthy, and others have cited the Blue Book and have insisted that it lacks credibility.  Sarafian has located Toynbee’s original manuscript, Toynbee’s correspondence with his sources, and most of the original reports, which were copied and sent to London. They can still be found at the Public Record Office (Kew), Bodleian Library (Oxford), National Archives (Washington, D.C.), Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.), and the Houghton Library (Cambridge, Mass.) He has established that the compilers were meticulous in their verification of sources. According to the Times Literary Supplement (London), “This work emerges from Ara Sarafian’s examination as documentation of a high order. . . . Sarafian convincingly rebuts the claims that there was any falsification, or that any of the documents was one-sided British propaganda.” Lord Avebury of the British House of Lords has welcomed the publication of this critical edition of the Blue Book. Excoriating the present-day British government for refusing to recognize the Armenian Genocide, “ostensibly for a lack of evidence,” Lord Avebury notes that “the British Foreign Office itself published such evidence as early as 1916. . . . Ara Sarafian should be commended for making a critical edition of The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire available to the public.”  Toynbee, who went on to be a major historian in his own right, was deeply moved by his research on the Genocide. In his 1967 memoir, Acquaintances, Toynbee wrote: “My study [of the Armenian Genocide] . . . left an impression on my mind that was not effaced by the still more cold-blooded genocide, on a far larger scale, that was committed during the Second World War by the Nazi. “Any great crime—private or public, personal or impersonal—raises a question that transcends national limits; the question goes to the heart of human nature itself. My study of the genocide that had been committed in Turkey in 1915 brought home to me the reality of Original Sin,” Toynbee concluded. The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915–1916 complements the Gomidas Institute’s Armenian Genocide Documentation Series, which to date includes four volumes of eyewitness accounts: Days of Tragedy in Armenia (Rev. Henry Riggs, Harpoot); “Turkish Atrocities” (twenty-one reports compiled by James Barton); Marsovan 1915 (the diary of Bertha Morley); and The German, the Turk and the Devil Made a Triple Alliance (the diary of Tacy Atkinson, Harpoot). |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 7, 2015 5:38:27 GMT
In the August 10, 1951 letter below, US Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk responds to a request from the South Korean Ambassador to the United States, Dr. You Chan Yang, to recognize Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory by having the 1952 Treaty of Peace with Japan include the Rocks among the territory that Japan renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea.  Secretary of State Rusk rejected the Korean Ambassador request with the following explanation: As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. His Excellency Dr. You Chan Yang, Ambassador of Korea. Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your notes of July 19 and August 2, 1951 presenting certain requests for the consideration of the Government of the United States with regard to the draft treaty of peace with Japan. With respect to the request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan "confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo," the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment.   The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formalor final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration. As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. It is understood that the Korean Government's request that "Parangdo" be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn.  The United States Government agrees that the terms of paragraph (a) of Article 4 of the draft treaty are subject to misunderstanding and accordingly proposes, in order to meet the view of the Korean Government, to insert at the beginning of paragraph (a) the phrase, "Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Article", and then to add a new paragraph (b) reading as follows: (b) "Japan recongnizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of United States Military Government in any ofthe areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3". The present paragraph (b) of Article 4 becomes paragraph(c). The Government of the United States regrets that it is unable to accept the Korean Government's amendment to Article 9 of the draft treaty. In view of the many national interests involved, any attempt to include in the treaty provisions governing fishing in high seas areas would indefinitely delay the treaty's conclusion. It is desired to point out, however, that the so-called MacArthur line will stand until the treaty comes into force, and that Korea, which obtains the benefits of Article 9, will have the opportunity of negotiating a fishing agreement with Japan prior to that date.  With respect to the Korean Government's desire to obtain the benefits of Article 15(a) of the treaty, there would seem to be no necessity to oblige Japan to return the property of persons in Japan of Korean origin since such property was not sequestered or otherwise interfered with by the Japanese Government during the war. In view of the fact that such persons had the status of Japanese nationals it would not seem appropriate that they obtain compensation for damage to their property as a result of the war. Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. For the Secretary of State: Dean Rusk |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 7, 2015 2:39:52 GMT
 The piece of paper seen above (hover over to zoom; on mobile, click to zoom) was given to Jacob Beser on Aug. 8, 1945. The next day, the electronics specialist boarded a plane bound for Nagasaki. His job was to make sure no radio waves interfered with the mechanisms of the flight’s most important passenger: an atomic bomb. Just days before, Beser had fulfilled the same mission on board the Enola Gay on its trip to Hiroshima; the operations order for that flight is below. Many years later, Beser—the only man to fly both atomic-bomb missions—met Kenneth Rendell, the founder and director of the Museum of World War II in Natick, Mass., whose collection includes Beser’s operations orders. Both bear the faint, handwritten notes where Beser marked which document belonged to which city.  “[These documents] are a real window into what went on,” Rendell tells TIME. The mentions of prayer, of weather ships going out early to see how the cloud cover was, of what time participants had to wake up (“out of sacks”)—these details bring a human touch to a series of events that forever changed the world. “You get a sense of a snapshot of what was happening with these people,” he says. Rendell, who has amassed a considerable trove of World War II related artifacts for his museum, says he purchased the operations orders over two decades ago from the family of Jacob Beser, a radar and electronics specialist who was the only man to have flown both bombing missions. Beser died in 1992. Other items in the exhibit also were purchased from the family of crew members. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 3, 2015 11:57:41 GMT
Selected extracts of "top" NSA intercepts of Japanese leadership and chief officials, taken from various editions of the National Security Agency's Top Secret Global SIGINT Highlights executive briefings.
Japanese to State Goal of Reducing Carbon Emissions by Half by 2050 (S//SI//NF)
(S//NF) In preparing for the 26 to 27 April visit to Washington by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) apparently wanted to come up with a simple message regarding climate change with which the U.S. can agree. Accordingly, METI has pushed three principles: technical development, energy conservation and nuclear energy, and participation of all countries in the future framework. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) apparently wants Abe to mention at the bilateral summit Japan's goal of reducing carbon emissions by half by 2050 as part of the "Abe initiative," which will be announced in late May. The MFA was considering not informing the U.S. in advance of its intention, because the ministry did not expect Washington to approve of such a goal, based on the U.S. reaction to climate change issues so far. It was apparently decided at a briefing at the Prime Minister's official residence that Abe will clearly state the goal at the bilateral summit, with advance notification to the United States. Japan anticipates no major harm to the Japanese-U.S. relationship as a result.
Unconventional
Japanese leadership
Z-3/OO/8432-07, 181733Z
Japanese Leadership Working to Narrow Down Climate Change Goals for G-8 Summit (TS//SI)
(TS//SI//REL TO USA, AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL) Japanese officials from the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of Environment briefed Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura on 20 February on the environmental goals they believe Japan should work toward achieving at the G-8 Summit at Lake Toya, Japan, in July. Obtaining an agreement to use a sector-based cumulative approach for medium-term emissions reduction targets for individual countries was mentioned as one of the key objectives. Japan is also seeking to demonstrate its leadership in the environmental sector at the Summit and may announce its domestic emissions reduction goals prior to the meeting.
Unconventional
International commercial
3/OO/1447-08, 252149Z
Tokyo's Climate Change Officials to Continue Promoting Sectoral Approach (TS//SI//NF)
(TS//SI//NF) Japanese climate change officials apparently plan to continue promoting the sectoral approach despite criticism from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and some European Union officials. Fatih Birol, Chief Economist of the IEA, reportedly warned the Japanese in mid-May that they are pushing too hard to promote the sectoral approach and may be perceived as offering this approach as the only option for reducing carbon emissions. He also cautioned that the sectoral approach is not yet understood and that Tokyo must clarify the concept and promote understanding and trust among the nations concerned. Masakazu Toyoda of the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry expressed frustration at this criticism then laid out three advantages of the sectoral approach: first, the approach is designed to get China, India, and the U.S. on board; second, this approach allows developed countries to avoid expending unnecessary efforts to reduce carbon emissions in areas covered by the sectoral approach; and third, the sectoral approach will, in Toyoda's estimation, not result in any economic or industrial loss for developed or developing nations. One Japanese official thinks that it may be difficult for the Europeans to implement the sectoral approach in sectors such as electricity, which is already subject to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). He suggested that the ultimate solution is dependent upon the EU accepting a method of determining a figure for total carbon emissions reductions that includes the electricity sector. Toyoda claimed that businesses from several sectors--including steel, aluminum, cement, and petroleum--are threatening to cease their European operations if the ETS continues as is.
Unconventional
Japanese leadership
Z-3/OO/4448-08, 041359Z
Japanese Agriculture Minister to Address WTO Issues With USTR on Margins of OECD Talks (TS//SI//NF)
(TS//SI//NF) The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries drafted talking points on 20 June for Minister Shigeru Ishiba's use at a meeting to address issues related to the Doha Round with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which is to take place in Paris on the margins of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) trade ministerial. (According to press, Ishiba said that he will visit Paris for 4 days, beginning tomorrow, where he will explain Tokyo's position as a major food importer, referring to the stance it takes in the Doha round of multilateral trade-liberalization talks. During his visit, Ishiba plans to hold separate talks with WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy and the USTR.) Among the points that may be addressed with the USTR are U.S. commitment to concluding the Doha Round negotiations by mid-2010. Regarding the implementation of outcome testing, Ishiba may ask how the USTR will counter developing countries' opposition to holding consultations on special products. The Minister could also address the need to ensure that the results of the WTO agriculture negotiations do not curtail agriculture in the member countries, and Japan's anticipation of an early appointment by the USTR of a chief agricultural negotiator. Other topics that may be broached are fisheries subsidies, the need for bilateral consultations on individual products, and tariffs on forestry and fishery products.
Unidentified
Japanese leadership
Z-3/OO/515664-09, 221902Z
Japanese Strive to Avoid Damage to U.S. Relations Over Cherry Imports (TS//SI//OC/NF)
(TS//SI//OC/NF) Officials in the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) appeared recently to be seeking ways to prevent damage to relations with the U.S. over the ministry's decision to delay the importation of U.S.-origin cherries, a decision driven by Japanese politicians and growers. MAFF was alarmed by the very strong reaction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Tokyo's ruling that imports could not commence until the end of this month, when a pilot program involving inspections in the U.S. Pacific Northwest by a MAFF inspector is expected to be concluded satisfactorily. One approach under consideration is to have the ministry admit to Washington, through back channels, that the decision had been the product of political pressure. Also, it was recommended that the U.S. be notified that--unlike in the beef dispute--imports could begin as soon as the result of on-site inspection is confirmed, rather than after the inspector had returned to Japan and more tests conducted. The principal fear among the Japanese is that the issue will become similarly politicized, possibly at senior levels, in Washington.
Unconventional
Japanese governmental
Z-3/OO/515570-09, 221708Z
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2015 12:16:07 GMT
 In July 1937 war broke out in northern China between China and Japan, and by August the fighting had spread to the city of Shanghai. After capturing Shanghai the Japanese Army decided on December 1 to continue its military campaign to the capital city of the Nationalist government of China, Nanking, which is roughly 300 kilometers west of Shanghai. Although the Japanese succeeded in surrounding Nanking and defeating the Chinese garrison stationed there by December 13, few of the Chinese soldiers within the city formally surrendered. Instead they threw away their uniforms and weapons and hid among the city's civilian population. Over the course of its subsequent occupation of Nanking the Japanese Army hunted down the former Chinese soldiers within the city and in a large number of cases summarily executed them. At the same time soldiers of the Japanese Army also committed random acts of murder against civilians, and engaged in rape, arson, and looting. These events are collectively known as the Nanking Massacre.  Between then and the late 1940s these two estimates were commonly cited by reporters and the media. For example, Edgar Snow stated in his 1941 book, The Battle for Asia, that 42,000 were massacred in Nanking and 300,000 in total between Nanking and Shanghai, figures which were apparently based on these estimates. The 1944 film, The Battle of China, stated that 40,000 were killed in the Nanking Massacre.  Another early estimate was that of China's state-run Central News Agency, which reported in February 1938 that the Japanese had slaughtered 60,000 to 70,000 POWs in Nanking.[17] The same month a representative of the Nationalist Government of China claimed that the Japanese had killed 20,000 civilians during the Nanking Massacre. However, in a 1942 speech Chiang Kai-shek raised that figure to "over 200,000 civilians". In 1938 the Red Army of the Communist Party of China estimated the total death toll at 42,000 massacred. John Rabe, the German head of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, estimated that between 50,000 and 60,000 Chinese were killed in Nanking, though this estimate included both military casualties and massacred civilians.  China says 300,000 people died in a six-week spree of killing, rape and destruction after the Japanese military entered Nanjing, although some respected foreign academics put the number lower. China historian Jonathan Spence, for example, estimates that 42,000 soldiers and citizens were killed and 20,000 women raped, many of whom later died. |
|
