1985_02 Hye Sharzhoom Newspaper February 1985

              February, 1985
Hye Sharzhoom
Page 3
"A New Kind of War"
By David Durfee Minier
"I will be the first one as an example
tO many more tO follOW."      -Gourgen Yanikian
David Minier, District Attorney of Santa Barbara and
prosecutor in the 1973 Gourken Yanikian trial, submitted the following article to Hye Sharzhoom. We are
indeed fortunate to receive an item ofsuch significance.
Although Minier finds no connection between the present
Turkish government and the Ottoman Empire, it should
be noted that, according to the Genocide Convention of
the United Nations, the guilty party in a genocide is a
perpetuating state, and has thus no statute of limitations.
In view of this, though the government of the Turkish
state has changed, both during and after the Ottoman
Empire, the present government is still judged guilty
according to the Genocide Convention. The article was
written in August, 1984 and includes a summary of
Yanikian's life, the events of the trial, and Minier's own
conclusions about the"Armenian Question".
,.•„      ■-- ■> ■  -■ - -     ■■• » '
Last Sunday the Bee published a detailed article about
how the Armenian massacres of 1915 are viewed today.
As noted in the article, a delayed consequence of the
massacres has been, starting in 1973, a series of assassinations of Turkish diplomats and family members by
Armenian terrorists.
Local readers may be interested to know that this
terrorist movement was begun by Gourgen Mkrtich
Yanikian, a Fresno resident from 1951 to 1956. When the
89 year old Armenian died last March, shortly after his
release from prison, Yanikian was eulogized as a hero—
the creator of what he called "a new kind ofwar": the
terrorist assassination of Turkish diplomats.
For eleven years Yanikian's "war" has raged on, taking
the lives of diplomats in over a dozen countries. There is,
unfortunately, little hope that it has ended with Yanikian's
de^th.
This "new kind of war" began on January 27, 1973,
when the distinguished, 78 year old Armenian emigrant
received the Consul General and Vice Consul of the
Republic of Turkey in his cottage at the exclusive
Biltmore Hotel in Santa Barbara, California. As they
settled into comfortable yellow armchairs, Yanikian
withdrew a nine millimeter luger pistol from a hollowed
out book, filled the two diplomats in a hail of bullets, and
then administered the "coup de grace" to the head with a
second gun.
A few hours before his act, Yanikian, an American
citizen since 1956, mailed a"call to action" to hundreds of
newspapers, magazines, and prominent Armenians
throughout the world. In it, he proclaimed that he had
begun a "new kind of war," which he urged his fellow
Armenians to continue "until the final surrender." "All
representatives of the so—called Turkish government,"
Yanikian wrote, "should be eliminated from the earth
wherever they appear." Of his own act, the elderly
assassin said "I will be the first one as an example to many
more to follow."
In response to Yanikian's blueprint for assassination,
there has followed a global series of terrorist attacks upon
Turkish nationals. These have in the last 11 years,
claimed the lives of 26 Turkish diplomats, their relatives
and aides, and have left over 150 others dead or wounded.
(An intensive F.B.I, investigation concluded that Yanikian
acted alone in his assassinations. Credit for subsequent
killings has been claimed by several different Armenian
terrorist groups.)
In January, 1982, on the ninth anniversary of Yanik-
ian'sact, a second Turkish Consul General was shot and
killed in California, at Los Angeles.(Ironically,this same
Consul General had recommended Yanikian's removal
from prison and placement in a rest home on humanitarian
grounds. In January, Hampig Sassounian, a 20 year old
Armenian representing the "Justice Commandos of the
Armenian Genocide," was convicted of the murder.)
Last July, a Turkish embassy attache was gunned down
in Brussels, six people were killed in the bombing of the
Turkish Airlines counter at a Paris airport, and a
diplomat's wife was killed in a bloody attack upon the
Turkish embassador's house in Lisbon. Other Turkish
officials have been killed in over a dozen cities of Europe,
Australia, and the Middle East.
As District Attorney of Santa Barbara County, I
prosecuted Gourgen Yanikian for the killing of the two
diplomats. After a lengthy trial, a jury found the white
haired engineer-turned-author guilty of two counts of
first degree murder, and he was sentenced to life in
prison.
Last January, Yanikian finally regained his freedom.
Eighty-nine and in failing health, he was paroled from
California's bleak, gray walled Vacaville Medical Facility, after 11 years behind bars.
When I interviewed Yanikian there shortly before this
release, I found him bent with age, nearly deaf, and
suffering from a host of physical ailments. The
commanding voice, the piercing gray eyes, and the proud
bearing, however, were all as I remembered them to be a
decade earlier. Two months later, Yanikian was dead of a
heart attack. He was unrepentant to the end, and, in
death, he has become a symbol.
What motive caused this elderly man to take the lives
of two Turkish diplomats 11 years ago, and to exhort
Armenians everywhere to follow him in waging a "new
kind of war"? It was, he wrote, "to demand justice" for
the 1915 massacre of two million Armenians, and the
appropriation of their historic land, by the Turkish
government.
This motive has been echoed since 1973 by the
followers of Yanikian's "example," who have demanded
1) an admission by the Turkish government that the
massacres occurred, and 2) restoration of an Armenian
homeland in Eastern Turkey.
The massacres which motivated Yanikian's "call to
action" are known to Armenians everywhere; almost
every Armenian can recall the names of relatives who
were victims. Armenia, one of the world's oldest nations,
and the first to embrace Christianity, came under Moslem
rule in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople to the
Ottoman turks. Armenian nationalism was never
extinguished, and in 1895 it led to the first large scale
massacres. In that year—in which Gourgen Yanikian
was born—the Turkish government brutally suppressed
fledgling Armenian independence movement, killing an
estimated 80,000 Armenians in Turkey's eastern provinces.
In 1909, perhaps 30,000 more Armenians were killed,
in reaction to their nationalistic activities. It was the
outbreak of World War I, however, which provided the
excuse for terminating Turkey's "Armenian problem."
In 1915, the second year of the war, the once mighty
Ottoman Empire was in its death throes. After 700 years
of despotic rule by the sultans, Turkey was often called
"the sick man of Europe." Backwards and oppressingly
poor, its population was largely illiterate. Church and
state were united under the Sultan-Caliph. Women had
no rights, polygamy flourished, and red fezes adorned the
heads of the country's men.
Entering World War I on the side of Germany and
Austria-Hungary, Turkey faced invading armies on two
fronts: the English to the west, at Galipoli, and the
Russians to the east in Anatolia. Fighting with the
Russian forces was the 10,000 man Armenian Volunteer
Regiment commanded by General Antranik.
Fearful that eastern Turkey's Armenian population of
almost two milion would aid the invading Russians,
See "A New Kind of War", See Page 9
Students compare Armenian churches
By Jenny Kasparian
Contributing Writer
Students in Dr. Kouymjian's Armenian
Studies 10 classes were assigned, as one
student stated, to "a very educational and
cultural day with the Armenians." Dr.
Kouymjian asked each student to attend
one Armenian Apostolic church service
and one Armenian evangelical church
service, and then write a critical analysis
describing the two experiences.
The Armenian students attended Holy
Trinity Armenian Apostolic, St. Paul
Armenian Apostolic Church, and St.
Gregory Armenian Apostolic Church (in
Fowler). The evangelical churches visited
were Pilgrim Armenian Congregational
Church and First Armenian Presbyterian
Church.
The comments received from the Armenian students first dealt with architectural differences: "Entering Holy Trinity,
I walked through a very ornate church,"
and "St. Paul's is a spacious, tetraconch
style church, while the Presbyterian church
is smaller and simpler."
The second distinct area of comparison
was the congregation. "Recognizing that
I was new in First Presbyterian, about
four people came up and spoke with me
before the service. This warmth was
clearly lacking in Holy Trinity." The same
student commented, "I also noted at Holy
Trinity the way the people have had
strength and faith in this religion for all
these years." Another students wrote, "As
I left the Pilgrim Church, the minister
stood at the door and greeted people,
while Holy Trinity's priest did not come
out."
The third are compared was the service
itself. One Armenian student observed,
"At Holy Trinity, the choir plays a major
role in the service. The priest sings a chant
and the choir replies in unison; at First
Presbyterian, the service was taken from
the bible, reminding me of a class in bible
study."
The non-Armenian student also attended the above mentioned churches, with
the exception of St. Gregory. Their
comments, however, focused on the indi-
treatment by the congregation to the
visiting non-Armenian students. "Overall, Pilgrim had a very warm feeling. We
were greeted by the preacher and felt very
welcome."
a very educational and cultural day
with the Armenians."
vidual services and how they, as "outsiders," were treated.
One student stated, "Unfortunately, the
completely Armenian spoken service,
except for a portion of the sermon, was
quite vague even with the handout outlining the liturgy. The length of the service,
three hours, became quite tiring. In
accordance with this, another student
added, "The reflection on the readings
and sermon (at Pilgrim church) gave me a
good spiritual feeling."
The greatest contrasting area was the
"My visit to St. Paul's church was a
stark contrast. We were not made welcome
and felt quite uncomfortable."
Finally, a quote from a student summing
up his experience: "I definitely had a
better experience at the Pilgrim Church.
As for a friendly and welcome atmosphere,
there was no real comparison. To me, a
church should be a place of friendship and
togetherness, somewhere that you look
forward to going to, and the Pilgrim
Church offerred this, whereas the St.
Paul's Church did not."