I am pleased to join you in this remembrance of the first genocide of the last century. Since then, the millennium has changed, but man has not. That tragedy, that crime against humanity, was followed by a dozen more such politically motivated murders of entire nations. Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, in Darfur, we are again witnessing a world caught up in condemnation, but lacking the political will to name and stop the perpetrators of genocide. It is history repeating itself.

This year, on and around April 24, we marked the 90th anniversary of the Genocide of Armenians. British political life kept you from doing so here, and so today in June, this conference reminds us that remembering and condemning are not limited to anniversaries.

I appreciate that this commemoration is taking place in Great Britain, the home of Arnold Toynbee and James Bryce - a historian and a diplomat who were charged with examining documents about the treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Today's Turkish government wants to review and rewrite their work.

That is what Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan said in a letter addressed to the British Parliament earlier this year. It's not enough that they have spent a good part of this century rewriting their own history, now they want to rewrite yours. In the year 2005, in a world that no longer has empires and colonies, in a world where it is lofty ideals which unite countries and nations in alliances and guide their policies and engagements, it is at the very least disheartening that a modern Turkish government - hailed as a democratic beacon, an example of the victory of universal ideals over sectarian beliefs - can continue to cynically deny their history, AND ours.

When a government plans to do away with its own population to solve a political problem - that's genocide. At the turn of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was shrinking, it was losing its hold over its subjects along the periphery of the empire. For fear that in Anatolia, too, the Armenian minority would agitate for greater rights and invite foreign powers to exert pressure, the Ottoman leadership used the cover of World War I to attempt to wipe out the Armenians.

US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau called what he witnessed, the Murder of a Nation. Others called it 'race murder'. They did so because there was no term Genocide yet. When the word was finally coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, it was done with clear reference to genocidal acts prior to that date, the Armenian Genocide included. There is no doubt that if the word genocide had existed in 1915, every one of the hundreds of articles would have used the term.

In the face of this, Turkey's continued insistence on rejecting and rewriting history costs them credibility and time. Two months ago, Prime Minister Erdogan wrote a second letter. It was addressed to my President - although they gave it to the press before they gave it to us. The letter said let's set up a joint historical commission and let them study what he called this 'disputed period in history'. He said it would constitute a step towards contributing to the normalization of relations between our countries.

We would like nothing more than normalization between our countries. But we think he has it backwards. We need some normalization between our countries in order for a joint commission to be able to work on this or any other dispute. There is nothing normal about our relationship today. Within Turkey, there is not a normal environment in which to discuss these issues. In the two months since this letter was issued, Turkey has ratified a penal code which makes use of the word genocide a punishable crime. In the two months since this letter, Turkey has put on trial several writers and historians for use of the word genocide, and most recently even for use of the term 'massacre'. In the two months since this letter, Turkish authorities forced the cancellation of an academic conference co-sponsored by three Turkish universities, with the very politically correct title: Ottoman Armenians During the Decline of the Empire.

One does not knock on Europe's door by blindfolding historians and gagging writers. In this kind of environment, what are the members of the commission supposed to discuss? In the absence of relations between the two governments, who is to appoint them and who are they to report to?

Denial and rejection have taken deep root in Turkish society. They've been justified by a rhetoric of Armenian treachery, aggression, criminality and territorial ambition.

The political consequence of this rationale has been a unilateral closing of the Armenian-Turkish border. There have been no normal exchanges, interactions or relations across our borders - not in Soviet times, and not since our independence. Does Turkey wish to spend the whole of the next century obstinately cementing the memories and reproaches of the past? When will we move on to creating a new context within which these two neighbors will be able to share a common space, create new experiences and grow to live together without acrimony or hostility? Armenians need recognition for very tangible security reasons, as well, and not just in the interests of historical justice.

Consigning these difficult issues to a few academics and experts, in such a vacuum, is not a genuine attempt at creating a dialog.

The massive resources and reputation of the Turkish state have been invested in evading history and avoiding the term genocide. It will take the engagement of that same Turkish state to begin a dialog. We are not the only neighbors in the world who have had, and who continue to have, a troubled relationship.

That is what President Kocharian said to Prime Minister Erdogan in his response. He also said that Armenia is ready for a political dialog. Under the rubric of a political dialog, all other kinds of discussions - about today's borders and yesterday's history - can take place. Under the rubric of a political dialog, those responsible, committed and empowered to act can be engaged in the healing.

Today's Turks do not bear the guilt of the perpetrators, unless they choose to defend and identify with them. Armenians and Turks, together with the rest of the modern world, can reject the actions and denounce the crimes of the Ottoman Empire.

Some Turkish writers and academics have begun down that difficult road to introspection and study. Some are doing so publicly and with great transparency. In this context, it is essential that the international community doesn't turn a blind eye, but instead consistently extends its hand, its example, its own history of transcending.

Every nation edits its own past - just as it edits visions of its future. It has been the selective amnesia of the Turkish establishment which is the stumbling block to efforts to reckon with our common past. We continue to hope that Turkey's 21st century vision of a future in Europe, and Europe's vision of a Europe with Turkey, will overtake 19th century politics.