AZG Armenian Daily #067, 15/04/2005
Armenian Genocide
GENOCIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT: A DEAD END?
Worldwide Armenian political demands on Turkey have always included land,
restitution, and Genocide acknowledgment. Over time, however, the demand for
acknowledgment has eclipsed the other demands. In view of the obvious
obstacles the land and restitution issues have faced, that’s understandable.
Genocide acknowledgment is different. Armenians, and many non-Armenians,
have readily rallied around such a straightforward and relatively
non-aggressive demand. Moreover, a Turkish confession – apparently a mere
sentence or two – has seemed achievable.
Suppose, therefore, that Turkey’s Prime Minister announced today that
“Turkey acknowledges that 90 years ago, during a time in which both Turks
and Armenians were murdered, some individuals in the Ottoman regime
committed genocide against Armenians. Let us and Armenia now begin a new
era.”
Dead End
Would that really heal our collective psyche? Would it be sincere and
signify a genuine shift in Turkish attitudes? Would Turkish organizations
and individuals cease their Genocide denial? Would the remaining survivors
and their descendants receive restitution/reparations?
Would Armenia’s security be measurably enhanced? Would Turkey open its
border with Armenia? Would it end its pan-Turkic thrust – similar to the one
that spawned the Genocide – into the Caucasus and Central Asia? Could
Armenians resettle in Anatolia/Western Armenia? Would Armenia recover even
small amounts of that territory?
That the likely answer to each question is “No” should cause us to rethink
our emphasis on acknowledgment. Among the political scientists doing that
are Dr. Simon Payaslian, Nicolas Tavitian MS, and Dr. Khatchik Der
Ghougassian (Armenian Forum, Vol. 2, No. 3, Gomidas.org).
Rethinking Acknowledgment
The “essential component” of “historic Armenian lands,” says Payaslian, has
been “redefined as, or totally replaced by, recognition.” Western countries’
“commemorative statements that ignore the territorial issue should be
rejected.” He lists four goals of acknowledgment: territory, emotional
healing, restitution, and enhanced international standing for Armenia. Only
the last, Payaslian concludes, is realistically achievable through
acknowledgment. He is troubled by “the lack of public debate” on the
“purposes and problems” of “Genocide recognition.”
So is Tavitian: “Striving for genocide recognition has long been a reflex
rather than an action toward a goal … Armenians should rethink their
approach.”
However, acknowledgment could be a “security guarantee” for Armenia if it
can “transform Turkey [and] the West’s understanding of Armenia’s security.”
The quest for acknowledgment, Der Ghougassian believes, maintains “vigilance
against the Turkish threat.” Acknowledgment might be a “first step” towards
“normalization of relations.” Nevertheless, “A response to the Genocide must
deprive Turkey” of the land it took in the genocide. Clearly, then, we need
to rethink the pursuit of acknowledgment. If not, we may regret it.
Land and Restitution
The European Union (EU), which Turkey aspires to join, is asking Turkey to
recognize the Genocide. Suppose Turkey complies. The EU and the US would
likely conclude, since the land and restitution issues are not now
prominently on the table, that Armenians had received everything they had
asked for. For Armenians to subsequently try to drag those two issues into
the spotlight would be difficult. And, as argued above, acknowledgment alone
is unlikely to benefit Armenia much anyway. Worse, an educated guess is that
the West would accept a sham acknowledgment, such as “Turkey regrets the
wrongful murder of Armenians in 1915 by the old Ottoman regime.”
Frankly, acknowledgment, in the absence of the restoration of Armenian
rights, may be undesirable. The pursuit of acknowledgment, rather than
acknowledgment itself, helps to maintain a strong defensive posture against
Turkey and is a valuable tool to keep Armenia’s foe off balance.
Placing restitution and territory near the front of our agenda, therefore,
serves two purposes. First, Turkey is unlikely to issue an acknowledgment at
all, for fear of the consequences. Second, if an acknowledgment does come,
Turkey and the West would less able to close the book on the Armenian case.
In the meantime, efforts are underway to undermine the restitution and land
issues.
State Department Trap
John Evans, the US Ambassador to Armenia, and David L. Phillips, a State
Department consultant and moderator of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
Commission (TARC), recently toured the US gleefully claiming that Armenians
cannot ask for restitution or land from Turkey.
They cite a 2003 “report” sponsored by TARC. The report affirmed the
factuality of the genocide, but deviously asserted that the UN’s1948
Genocide Treaty cannot be applied retroactively to 1915 and that “legal,
financial, or territorial” claims are invalid.
Indeed, Phillips hints that four years ago it was he who arranged for
President Robert Kocharian to tell Turkish TV that Armenia will not press
for restitution or territory.
This, then, is the trap being laid for us: the US, and possibly Turkey, may
someday issue a Genocide “acknowledgment”, but Armenians must abandon all
claims, particularly territorial ones, against Turkey.
Why is America worried about Turkish territory? Because the State
Department, not to mention Europe and Israel, regards eastern Turkey as a
vital path to the Caspian Sea region’s oil and gas. By disposing of Genocide
acknowledgment and trashing Armenian land claims, the State Department hopes
to both protect eastern Turkey and more easily penetrate the Caucasus.
The Future
Genocide acknowledgment is a vital, and perhaps permanent, weapon in Armenia
and the Diaspora’s arsenals. It must not be dealt away cheaply. Armenia and
the traditional Diasporan political parties should immediately place land
and restitution alongside, or close to, the acknowledgment demand.
Realistically, of course, Armenia cannot recover territory anytime soon.
Still, that territory is vital for long-term security. For example, Armenia
requires a secure path to the Black Sea and, therefore, to Europe and
Russia. Needless to say, to attain that goal, Armenia must become much
stronger. (See “The Armenian Land Question: Misunderstood Terrain,” Armenian
Mirror Spectator, Boston, July 31, 2004.)
Recovering territory and obtaining material restitution someday will heal
our wounds more than all the Turkish acknowledgments in the world. Notice,
for example, that as Armenians now control Karabagh and the surrounding
territory, the repression and massacres that Azerbaijan inflicted on
Armenians in the last 100 years take a back seat.
Winning, therefore, is the best revenge, though we will always honor those
who perished and suffered in the Genocide.
Lastly, we need to better educate ourselves about land and restitution.
Genocide related commemorations, lectures, and conferences should emphasize
the ongoing geopolitical consequences of 1915: loss of historic lands and
individual and historical property, and an adversary that remains committed
to a dangerous, pan-Turkic philosophy. Younger generations, particularly –
by nature action-oriented – crave such meaty political issues.
And if Turkey never acknowledges the Genocide? Security, and the restoration
of rights and the Armenian homeland are more important.
By David B. Boyajian, Armenian American freelance writer
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress