Word Atrocities: Of Little Phrases and Great Crimes
By Vartan Matiossian // September 27, 2013 in Opinion
Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the
Cambodians which followed it’and like too many other such persecutions
of too many other peoples’the lessons of the Holocaust must never be
forgotten.
`Ronald Reagan (1981)1
I brought up matter of Holocaust Museum. It seems someone has approved
a room dedicated to 1915 massacre of some Armenians by the Turks. I’m
against it but don’t know what we can do.
`Ronald Reagan (1988)2
Ronald Reagan’s little phrase
In 1969, during the third year of his first term as governor of
California, Ronald Reagan spoke at the monument of the genocide in
Montebello during the April 24th commemoration. His speech included
the following sentence: `Today, I humbly bow in memory of the Armenian
martyrs, who died in the name of freedom at the hands of Turkish
perpetrators of genocide.’3 Twelve years later, in the first 100 days
of his first term as U.S. president, Reagan issued Proclamation 4838
about Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust. The
proclamation, which included the above sentence first quoted as an
epigraph, was drafted by his chief speechwriter, Kenneth L.
Khachigian, who has recalled: `While most proclamations routinely pass
through the White House system, I felt a responsibility to ensure that
the National Security apparatus was aware that this might be
controversial. Thus, after completing the draft, I walked it over to
the West Wing and first met with deputy national security advisor,
Admiral James `Bud’ Nance. I showed Admiral Nance the language, and
alerted him to the fact that it might be controversial. His exact
words were: `Well, it’s the truth, isn’t it?’ I said yes, and that, in
fact, my father was a survivor’having lost his mother, sister and
brother in that period. But out of even more precaution, I wanted
Richard Allen, President Reagan’s national security advisor, to be
aware of the wording. He looked at it and said there was nothing in
there he would disagree with and signed off on it. Therefore, both
supported the inclusion of this wording because the Armenian Genocide
was an indisputable historical act.’4
According to French-Armenian political scientist Gaidz Minassian,
something else was reportedly going on behind the curtains, related to
Armenian activism: `Upon instructions of the Reagan administration,
the American security services pledge to the ARF to obtain from
Congress a new process for recognition of the genocide, if terrorism
stops. They try the same approach in direction of ASALA with less
hope, due to the anti-American line of the organization. To bait the
Armenians, R. Reagan recognizes, on April 22, 1981, the genocide of
the Armenians.’5
Its reception seems to have been subdued. Three weeks later, the
Armenian Weekly reported it in a one-column news flash under the
title, `President Reagan Makes Reference to Armenian Genocide,’ with a
laconic note that acknowledged it as `a very important reference,
since it constitutes a formal recognition of the Armenian Genocide.’
It reprinted simultaneously an editorial by Asbarez that warned, `We
cannot become complaisant in our efforts as the result of a
Presidential proclamation which refers to `the genocide of the
Armenians.’ We have such official government proclamations,
resolutions, statements, etc., which could fill several rooms wall to
wall.’6
Interestingly, the Reagan phrase came one month after the U.S. State
Department had issued its annual report on human rights, which praised
Turkey `as an exemplary country, an epitome of Democracy, a bastion of
Western Civilization in the East’ in the aftermath of the bloody coup
d’état of September 1980.7 Khachigian has noted: `The State Department
never saw the draft and might have raised its natural objections. But
Reagan’s national security advisors also had great sensitivity to
international considerations, so I believe their thinking was that
speaking the `truth’ could not possibly disrupt the close NATO or
other diplomatic ties with Turkey. And while there was some `outrage’
in the Turkish press, the world did not come to an end¦’8
The payback
The end of the world would come later. The `genocide of the Armenians’
was outweighed by the `Note’ of August 1982, which read, `the State
Department does not endorse allegations that the Turkish Government
committed a genocide against the Armenian people,’ and its
half-hearted reversal of April 1983.9 In an impassionate letter in
1985, California Governor George Deukmejian reminded Reagan of a
December 1983 meeting at the Oval Office, where `you told me and the
assembled representatives of the Armenian-American community about
your personal knowledge of the Armenian genocide and your great sorrow
for the Armenian people,’ as quoted by the Los Angeles Times, which in
the same article reported that `the president also suggested that a
day of remembrance might encourage Armenian terrorist attacks on Turks
and Turkish-Americans.’10
`During the 1984 presidential elections, I wrote dozens of `enraged’
columns pleading with readers not to support the Reagan-Bush ticket.
Back then, many prominent Armenians, mostly Republicans, were backing
their partisan candidate under the guise that Reagan was good for
America. Never mind the `petty’ Armenian genocide issue, I was told,’
Armenian-American commentator Harut Sassounian recalled in 1992.11
Both Secretaries of State (George Shultz) and Defense (Casper
Weinberger) were engaged to defeat genocide resolutions in 1985 and
1987.12 After a National Security Council (NSC) meeting on Aug. 6,
1987, Reagan wrote in his diary, `Our Turkish friends are nervous. The
Cong[ress] is again considering a bill demanding the Turks take blame
for the Ottoman Empires [sic] persecution of Armenians when it was in
power.’13
Less than a year later, following another NSC meeting on June 28,
1988, the president recorded his opposition to a room in the Holocaust
Museum dedicated to the `massacre of some [sic] Armenians,’ although
he was unsure about what to do.14 In the early 1990’s, the relentless
lobby of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust by Turkish and
Israeli officials finished off the problem: As any visitor knows, the
prospective `Armenian room’ was reduced to the inscription of Adolf
Hitler’s 1939 phrase on a wall.15
`No Legal Consequence’
In a conversation on Armenian issues in 2008 with several members of
the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, Sassounian stated:
`Scores of countries, parliaments, have passed resolutions recognizing
it as genocide. ¦ So at this point it’s no longer what we used to call
the forgotten genocide or the hidden Holocaust. Most people who know
such things are aware of it. ¦ So we’re not clamoring anymore about
the world ignoring us.’16 In his `letter from a former admirer’ to
President Obama, he acknowledged a year later: `Armenians actually
gain nothing by having one more U.S. president reiterate what has been
said before. As you know, presidential statements, just as
congressional resolutions, have no legal consequence. President
Reagan’s proclamation and the adoption of two House resolutions on the
Armenian Genocide in 1975 and 1984 have brought nothing tangible to
Armenians in terms of seeking reparations for their immense losses in
lives and property.’17
Moreover, in 2012, he stated that all three branches of the U.S.
government had recognized the genocide, and listed several judicial
resolutions, two resolutions of the House of Representatives, and two
documents of the executive, including Reagan’s mention.18 Months
later, since non-beggars can be choosers, he reminded:
`Armenian-Americans do not need to beg Obama to acknowledge the
Armenian Genocide, since President Reagan issued such a statement in
his Presidential Proclamation of April 22, 1981.’19
The dictum `presidential statements, just as congressional
resolutions, have no legal consequence,’ has proven disputable,
however. On Aug. 20, 2009, in a lawsuit on the return of Armenian
Genocide-era insurance assets (Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in California
overturned a state law (§354.4) that was preempted as it interfered
with the federal power to conduct foreign affairs. It was argued that
public statements and letters of former Presidents Bill Clinton and
George W. Bush had shown the executive branch’s refusal to provide
official legislative recognition to the genocide. Although
`presidential foreign policy in the present case is not embodied in
any executive agreement,’ the ruling continued, `[t]his does
not¦detract from the policy’s preemptive force.’20
After the successful appeal (December 2010) and reversal (February
2012), in early May 2013 the U.S. government, by the same logic of
politics of power that has governed American foreign policy since the
times of the failed mandate over Armenia in 1920, made reference to
selective executive branch opposition and asked the Supreme Court not
to hear the appeal of the reversal of `politically contentious events
that occurred in the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago.’21 Despite
the challenge of `foreign affairs pre-emption doctrine’ by the
plaintiffs (May 24), on June 10 the Supreme Court announced that it
would not hear the appeal.22
`Free pass’
Politics and human rights aside, it becomes clear that presidential
statements may actually have some legal consequences: The executive
director of the Armenian National Committee of America, Aram
Hamparian, declared in February 2012 that the re-reversal of the
ruling by the Ninth District Circuit Court had underscored `the
urgency of President Obama honoring his pledge to properly recognize
this crime against humanity.’23 Incidentally, by using the words Medz
Yeghern, Obama had unwittingly recognized the crime with its Armenian
proper name of Great (Evil) Crime, but the political use of such
wording remained totally unexplored and unexploited.
In a recent online comment to one of our previous articles, historian
Elyse Semerdjian offered valuable insight into the `history inside the
Beltway’ of Obama’s choice. An unidentified U.S. government official24
had reportedly informed her `that she was observing the WATS [Workshop
on Armenian Turkish Scholarship] listserv and peered into a
conversation among Armenians and Turks about `the g word.’ From that
conversation five years ago, one camp suggested that Medz Yeghern
could be an alternative term that could serve as a place marker to
initiate conversations between Armenians and Turks without the added
legal ramifications.’25
The identity of this `one camp’ is rather clear; Baskin Oran, one of
the four initiators of the Turkish `apology campaign’ of 2008-09, had
acknowledged that the apology declaration had adopted Medz
Yeghern/`Great Catastrophe,’ as it was, supposedly, `the only
definition, the only expression, used until the Armenian Diaspora
discovered the PR value of `Armenian Genocide.”26
Thus, the Armenian-led insistence on Medz Yeghern/`Great Calamity’
contributed to endorsing the Turkish-led hoax, Büyük Felâket/`Great
Calamity,’ both at the height of the `apology campaign’ and to this
day. Recently, political scientist Ayda Erbal thoroughly critiqued the
`poetic license’ used by Turkish intellectuals and the impossible
nature of this translation.27
Followed sheepishly by the Armenian-American and international press
corps, Medz Yeghern/`Great Calamity’ would become, paradoxically, the
driving force behind `giving Obama a free pass and allowing him not to
keep his solemn pledge.’28 Obama’s 2008-13 statements did not need to
translate Medz Yeghern, since the disgraceful `Great Calamity’
translation, by omission or by commission, had been given a free pass
starting with President George W. Bush’s April 2005 statement.
Unfortunately, even Armenian public radio fell in the trap as recently
as April 2013: Its English website reported that `the Peace and
Democracy Party (BDP) of Turkey commemorated the mass killing of
Armenians in 1915 on its 98th anniversary, referring to it as `Meds
Yeghern’`Armenian for `great calamity’`and also calling it
`genocide.”29
`Great Atrocity’?
Meanwhile, the ongoing saga of Medz Yeghern recently underwent a new
development recently when Harut Sassounian unveiled his revamped
version, `Great Atrocity,’ without further explanation.30
However, the lack of enough linguistic grounds for `Great Atrocity’ is
noticeable. We have shown exhaustively that Armenian-English and
English-Armenian dictionaries of the past century offer `crime’ as the
primary and most frequent meaning of yeghern.32 Assuming that
Sassounian had not drawn upon Obama’s phrase, `one of the greatest
atrocities of the twentieth century,’ he may have reached for theonly
lexical source that translates yeghern as `atrocity”Thomas
Samuelian’s dictionary for language beginners, Armenian Dictionary in
Transliteration (1993), whose English-Armenian section translates both
`crime’ and `atrocity’ as yeghern.33 The only alternative may be the
dictionary by Mardiros Koushakjian and Rev. Dikran Khantrouni (1970),
which actually translates yeghern as `crime, atrocity, murder,” with
`atrocity’ after `crime.’34 Otherwise, some English-Armenian older
dictionaries readily available in the United States translated
`atrocity’ as vayrakutiun (Õ¾Õ¡ÕµÖÕ¡Õ£Õ¸Ö?Õ©Õ«Ö?Õ¶, I. A. Yeran) and kazanutiun
(Õ£Õ¡Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ¸Ö?Õ©Õ«Ö?Õ¶, H. H. Chakmakjian and Mesrob Kouyoumdjian),35 which
literally mean `savagery’ and `bestiality,’ respectively, with yeghern
completely out of the picture.
The Great (Evil) Crime, the Armenian Genocide
It is worth recalling that `crime,’ an action that constitutes an
offense and is punishable by law, is not necessarily conducive to
bloodshed (e.g., a bank fraud). However, the assumption that yeghern
is a `no name crime’ word, because it does not indicate the nature of
the crime, lacks grounds. The word `vojir,’ translated as `crime,’ is
more restrictive than the English word. The latest comprehensive
Armenian monolingual dictionary (1992) attests that vojir means:
1) sbanutiun (Õ½ÕºÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸Ö?Õ©Õ«Ö?Õ¶, killing), ariunaheghutiun (Õ¡ÖÕ«Ö?Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ¥Õ²Õ¸Ö?Õ©Õ«Ö?Õ¶,
bloodletting);
2) dzanr kreagan hantsank (Õ®Õ¡Õ¶Ö Ö?ÖÕ§Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ ÕµÕ¡Õ¶Ö?Õ¡Õ¶Ö?, grave criminal
offense), medz charakordzutiun (Õ´Õ¥Õ® Õ¹Õ¡ÖÕ¡Õ£Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ¸Ö?Õ©Õ«Ö?Õ¶, great evildoing);
3) (fig.) zankvadzayin godoradz (Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¸Ö?Õ¡Õ®Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¸Õ¿Õ¸ÖÕ¡Õ®, massive
massacre), with sbanutiun (Õ½ÕºÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸Ö?Õ©Õ«Ö?Õ¶, killing),yeghern(akordzutiun)
(Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¼Õ¶(Õ¡Õ£Õ¸ÖÕ®Õ¸Ö?Õ©Õ«Ö?Õ¶), crime), nakhjir (Õ¶Õ¡Õ – Õ³Õ«Ö, carnage), chart (Õ»Õ¡ÖÕ¤,
massacre), and sbant (Õ½ÕºÕ¡Õ¶Õ¤, slaughter) as synonyms for godoradz,
while yeghern, as we listed in a previous article, means vojir, sbant,
chart; kreagan hantsank.36
One needs to know Armenian as a living language to realize that a bank
fraud is a crime, but it is not a yeghern, unlike an individual and/or
collective killing (sbant, chart). Furthermore, we will see the
hitherto missing link between yeghern and tseghasbanutiun in the next
and final installment of this series.
As a matter of fact, international law does not require the use of
`the legal connotation of tseghasbanoutyoun or genocide’ 31 (e.g., its
use on a 24-hour basis) to legitimize Armenian demands. Uruguay, the
first country to recognize the genocide in contemporary times (1965),
did so without even using the word `genocide.’ The sum of the facts
proving specific intent and organized premeditation has qualified the
legally charged term Medz Yeghern (`Great Evil Crime’) with the legal
figure of genocide, and not the substitution of this proper noun by
the (im)proper noun `Armenian Genocide.’ The sum of the facts of
Armenian and Assyrian extermination had inspired Raphael Lemkin to
coin the word `genocide,’ but it was the sum of the facts of Jewish
extermination that gave legitimacy to the verdicts of Nuremberg, not
the use of genocide in the indictment, which, as a matter of fact,
British officials considered `too fancy.’37
If `it is now crystal clear that Obama’s deceptive use of `Meds
Yeghern’¦does not amount to an acknowledgment of the Armenian
Genocide, contrary to the gleeful pronouncements of some gullible
souls,’38 then one forward-looking, politically savvy response could
be to clearly show that:
1) The proper name of the event is actually `Medz Yeghern, the
Armenian Genocide’ and not `Armenian Genocide’; and
2) Medz Yeghern and genocide feed each other and make a unit in the
same way that Shoah/Holocaust and genocide do.
Notes
1) Code of Federal Regulations. Title 3: The President. 1981
Compilation and Parts 100 and 101, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1982, p. 25.
2) The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley, New York:
HarperCollins, 2009, p. 624.
3) Quoted in The Armenian Weekly, April 18, 2011.
4) Kenneth L. Khachigian, e-mail to the author, Dec. 11, 2012. See
also Michael Bobelian, Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and
the Century-Long Struggle for Justice, New York: Simon and Schuster,
2009, p. 169.
5) Gaidz Minassian, Guerre et terrorisme arméniens 1972-1998, Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 2002, p. 60.
6) The Armenian Weekly, May 16, 1981.
7) The Armenian Weekly, March 28, 1981.
8) Khachigian, e-mail, Dec. 11, 2012.
9) Roger W. Smith, `The Armenian Genocide: Memory, Politics, and the
Future,’ in Richard Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: History,
Ethics, Politics, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992, p. 19. See also
Dennis Papazian, `Misplaced Credulity: Contemporary Turkish Attempts
to Refute the Armenian Genocide,’ Armenian Review, Spring-Summer 1992,
p. 203.
10) Los Angeles Times, April 24, 1985.
11) Quoted in Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2, 1992.
12) Viken Guroian, `Politics and Morality of Genocide,’ in Richard
Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: History, Ethics,
Politics,New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992, pp. 315-316.
13) The Reagan Diaries, p. 524.
14) Ibid., 624.
15) Ronald J. Berger, Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems
Approach, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002, p. 166.
16) Los Angeles Times, April 24, 2008.
17) Huffington Post, April 28, 2009.
18) The Armenian Weekly, June 5, 2012.
19) The Armenian Weekly, Oct. 23, 2012.
20) United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, N 07-56722
DC No. CV-03-09407-CAS-JWJ, Pasadena, Aug. 20, 2009.
21) The Armenian Weekly, May 11, 2013.
22) The Armenian Weekly, June 10, 2013.
23) The Armenian Weekly, Feb. 23, 2012.
24) In a follow-up to his previous claim (The Armenian
Mirror-Spectator, June 13, 2009), Armenian-American commentator
Yervant Azadian suggested that Samantha Power, who was a member of the
National Security Council from January 2009 to March 2013, had
`resorted to the ruse of putting in Mr. Obama’s mouth the term used by
the late Pope John Paul II¦to avoid the use of the word genocide which
has finite legal determinants’ (The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, June
13, 2013).
25) See ,
posted on May 28, 2013. Semerdjian declined to identify her
interlocutor on the grounds that `her job is sensitive.’ Power did not
have any official position at the time of the posting (she was
nominated as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on June 5, 2013,
and delivered her credentials on Aug. 1); whether this is enough to
eliminate her as the source of `Meds Yeghern’ remains open to
speculation.
26) Quoted in Marc Mamigonian, `Commentary on the Turkish Apology
Campaign,’ The Armenian Weekly/Hairenik Weekly magazine, April 2009,
p. 21.
27) Ayda Erbal, `Mea Culpas, Negotiations, Apologias: Revisiting the
`Apology’ of Turkish Intellectuals,’ in Birgit Schwelling
(ed.),Reconciliation, Civil Society, and the Politics of Memory:
Transnational Initiatives in the 20th Century, Bielefeld: Transcript,
2012, pp. 85-86.
28) The Armenian Weekly, Feb. 12, 2013.
29) See
30) The Armenian Weekly, Feb. 12, 2013.
31) The Armenian Weekly, Feb. 23, 2012.
32) H.H. Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive English-Armenian Dictionary,
Boston: E.A. Yeran, 1922, p. 350; Adour Yacoubian, English`Armenian
and Armenian-English Dictionary Romanized, Los Angeles: Armenian
Archives Press, 1944, p. 170; Mesrob G. Kouyoumdjian,A Comprehensive
Dictionary Armenian-English, Beirut: Atlas Press, 1970, p. 168;
Mardiros Koushakdjian and Rev. Dicran Khantrouni,Armenian-English
Modern Dictionary, Beirut: G. Doniguian and Sons, 1970, p. 94.
33) Thomas Samuelian, Armenian Dictionary in Transliteration, New
York: Armenian National Education Committee, 1993, pp. 16, 127.
34) Koushakdjian and Khantrouni, Armenian-English Modern Dictionary, p. 94.
35) Chakmakjian, A Comprehensive English-Armenian Dictionary, p. 98;
Kouyoumdjian, A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English, p. 94; E.A.
Yeran, Pocket Dictionary or Pocket Companion English-Armenian, ninth
edition, Boston: Hairenik Press, 1960, p. 15 (first edition, ca.
1906). Yacoubian only has `atrocious’ = Õ£Õ¡Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶, Õ¹Õ¡Ö (kazanayin,
char) (Yacoubian, English-Armenian and Armenian-English Dictionary
Romanized, p. 10), the same as Koushakdjian and Khantrouni:
`atrocious’ = Õ£Õ¡Õ¦Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡ÕµÕ«Õ¶ (kazanayin); Õ¾Õ¡ÕµÖÕ¡Õ£Ö…ÖÕ§Õ¶Õ¤Õ¡ÕªÕ¡Õ¶ (vayrakoren
tazhan) (Mardiros Koushakdjian and Rev. Dicran Khantrouni,
English-Armenian Modern Dictionary, Beirut: G. Doniguian and Sons,
1970, p. 50).
36) Ardashes Der Khachadourian, Hayots lezvi nor bararan (New
Dictionary of the Armenian Language), vol. 2, Beirut: G. Doniguian and
Sons, 1992, p. 525; Archbishop Knel Jerejian and Paramaz Doniguian,
idem, vol. 1, p. 537.
37) See John Q. Barrett, `Raphael Lemkin and `Genocide” at Nuremberg,
1945-1946,’ in C. Safferling and E. Conze (eds.), The Genocide
Convention Sixty Years After its Adoption, The Hague: TMC Asser Press,
2010, pp. 44-47.
38) The Armenian Weekly, May 15, 2013.
From: A. Papazian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/09/27/word-atrocities-of-little-phrases-and-great-crimes/
www.armenianweekly.com/2013/05/15/the-exact-translation-how-medz-yeghern-means-genocide
www.armradio.am/en/2013/04/24/turkish-BDP-party-urges-the-authorities-to-offer-apology-to-Armenians.