The Armenian Weekly
80 Bigelow Avenue
Watertown, MA 02472
(617) 926-3974
[email protected]
The Armenian Weekly; Volume 75; No. 1; Jan. 10, 2009
Commentary and Analysis
1-Ankara Interested in Make-Up, Not Plastic Surgery
By Khatchig Mouradian
2-Letters from Istanbul
About the Apology Campaign
By Ayse Gunaysu
3-My Democracy, YouTube Democracy, and Turkish Democracy, Rode Out On A Rail
By Andy Turpin
4-Cheering and Hissing
By Garen Yegparian
5. The `Odar’ Connection in Our Midst
By Tom Vartabedian
6. Note to the Editor from Ara Sarafian
***
1-Ankara Interested in Make-Up, Not Plastic Surgery
By Khatchig Mouradian
Official Ankara’s position regarding the apology campaign initiated by
200 intellectuals in Turkey in December 2008 was clear from the very
beginning: The campaign is bad for Turkey and will also harm
Turkey-Armenia dialogue, which has been making strides recently.
Statements to this effect were made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, and Turkish army
generals.
When the apology campaign was launched in December 2008, Erdogan said
it amounted to `stirring up trouble, disturbing our peace and undoing
the steps which have been taken.’ He added, `If there is a crime, then
those who committed it can offer an apology. My nation, my country has
no such issue.’
Babacan, in turn, said, `This is a sensitive issue for Turkey. There
is a negotiation process going on [with Armenia] … This kind of
debate is of no use to anyone especially at a time talks continue and
it may harm the negotiation process.’
`We definitely think that what is done is not right. Apologizing is
wrong and can yield harmful consequences,’ said General Metin Gurak,
the spokesperson for the General Staff, during a press conference.
President Abdullah Gul was first playing the good cop: He spoke in
defense of the initiative when it was first launched, saying that it
was proof that democracy was thriving in Turkey. Yet, this simple
statement was harshly criticized by the opposition in Turkey, and
accusations flew from left and right. One parliament member `accused’
Gul of having an Armenian mother. The President was quick to deny the
allegation and start legal action against the person who threw it. He
didn’t bother to say, `My mother is not Armenian, but what if she
were?’ By taking the accusation as an insult, he essentially
reinforced the racist prejudice in Turkey against Armenians. (It may
be worth comparing this with the way then-presidential candidate
Barack Obama handled allegations of being a Muslim, but I digress.)
Apparently, President Gul could not hold his good cop routine for more
than two weeks. In early January, during an interview on the Turkish
television channel ATV, Gul said the apology campaign would have a
negative effect on the diplomatic efforts between the two countries.
According to Gul, `When we examine the latest debates in terms of
their results, I do not think they make a positive contribution.’ He
also said his previous statements were presented in a distorted way.
So now it’s official. There is consensus among the ruling party, the
opposition and the army in Turkey that the apology campaign will have
negative consequences on Turkey-Armenia dialogue.
The recent Turkey-Armenia dialogue that preceded and followed Gul’s
visit to Armenia in September 2008 did not address the root causes of
the Turkish-Armenian conflict. It is being referred to as `Soccer
Diplomacy’ but it looks more like `Let’s forget genocide,
dispossession and 93 years of denial’ diplomacy. Ankara has no
intention to address some of the core issues anytime soon. Moreover,
it is opposed to any civil society initiative to address – even in
part – these issues.
Instead, Ankara wants to put heavy make-up on its face, hoping to hide
its century-old scars. The calls by Turkish intellectuals for official
Ankara to wash its face and get plastic surgery are yet to be heard.
——————————————- ———————–
2-Letters from Istanbul
About the Apology Campaign
By Ayse Gunaysu
The old Turkish movies had a common pattern: There were the good ones
and the evil ones. Life was much easier for the audience back
then. They knew whom to applaud and whom to condemn, where to feel
sorry, where to rejoice and where to get angry. In that world, the
beautiful and the ugly, the good and the evil, the banal and the noble
are distinct categories that do not interact.
Although the old Turkish movies have long become a topic of mockery
for many in Turkey, the pattern of reasoning along such dichotomies of
good and bad, right and wrong, friend and enemy, and the attitude of
ignoring the complexities and focusing on what seems simple to us is
still at work to varying degrees in our hearts and in our minds.
This does not mean that everything is blurred. No doubt that we have
our clear `yes’ and `no,’ things we categorically reject or
wholeheartedly support. It’s just that the greater part of life is too
complex to be a black and white story. And truth is not
monolithic. There may be truth in two opposite arguments. Perhaps this
is why every `wrong’ has to put one leg on some aspect of the `right.’
Otherwise it would be absurd, not `wrong.’
What made me ponder on these complexities of life and individual
situations was my position vis-à-vis the recent apology campaign
initiated by a group of Turkish intellectuals.
The campaign unleashed public expressions of anti-Armenian
sentiments. Panel discussions on various TV channels on this subject
are very popular these days. Every day, you can see prominent
denialists doing their best to prove that the deportations were a
necessary measure against Armenian treachery, saying Armenians did
this, Armenians did that, citing names of places, referring to
`fedayis’ who committed crimes. What is much more horrible than the
articulation of this argument by a couple of well-known denialists is
the fact that they know the Turkish people will buy their lies. They
know that only a handful of people knows that nearly all able-bodied
men were in labor battalions, and that there were almost only elderly
men, women and children to deport – and massacre. At that time they
were far from being a threat to the military. And the activities of
Armenian revolutionaries, or the fedayis, were much less influencial
than today’s PKK – and even for the most fascist minds, deporting
the Kurdish population and killing them en masse on grounds of the
existence and activities of PKK is out of the question (in fact, only
the late retired diplomat Gunduz Aktan insinuated the need for such a
`final solution’ for the Kurdish question in his article published in
the `progressive’ Radical newspaper where he was a regular columnist.)
These prominent denialists feel so free to say what they please in
front of television audiences because they know that the overwhelming
majority in their country is far from being aware of simple facts
related to the fate of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. They also
do not feel any moral obligation towards their fellow Armenian
citizens, whom they present as the descendents of these treacherous
Armenians – and not as the descendents of a great civilization. They
are so self-confident because they know that this knowledge has been
successfully concealed generation after generation.
Amidst a chorus of condemnation from politicians, pseudo NGOs, or the
counter-campaigns of grassroots denialists calling for Armenians to
apologize for Turks and not the other way around, we have Canan
Aritman, a deputy of CHP, the main opposition party, attributing the
Turkish President’s initial neutral stance towards the apology
campaign to the alleged secret ethnic origin of his mother. Again,
what is more horrible than this statement is the fact that it is taken
for granted on the part of the general public that having an Armenian
parentage, regardless of whether or not the individual has converted
to Islam, is shameful and needs to be concealed.
Under these circumstances, under such audacious attacks, I am
violently, furiously, passionately on the side of that thousands of
people who put their signatures under the apology statement. And this,
this passion is one of the fundamental reasons of my existence.
However I didn’t put my signature under that statement.
This is the moment, the particular point where I feel most strongly
what I said at the start of my writing: Truth is fragmented, not
monolithic. I didn’t sign it because the campaign has different
implications at different levels.
On the one hand, it provided a means for thousands of people in
Turkeyto express what they feel about the injustices done to their
fellow Armenians, which is very valuable.
But on the other hand, in addition to the specific wording of the
statement offering the term `medz yeghern’ or the `great catastrophe’
as an alternative to the word Genocide, we now hear some of the
initiators of the campaign trying to use the apology as a means to
fight the use of the word Genocide and hamper the work of those who
seek the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. They portray those
seeking recognition as the twin sisters and brothers of the Turkish
fascists, and they present the `Diaspora’ as the enemy of any
reconciliation.
I know that the initiators of the campaign have become a target of
harsh criticism and death threats by Turkish nationalists, and that
they are the prominent advocates of more democracy and greater
freedoms. But this does not change the fact that by their discourse,
they contribute to the demonization of those who do use of the word
Genocide.
For example, Baskin Oran, in an interview published in the daily
Milliyet on Dec. 19, 2008, said, `The Prime Minister should be
grateful for our campaign. Parliaments around the world were passing
Genocide resolutions one after other automatically. This will stop
now. The Diaspora has softened. The international media has started to
refrain from using the word genocide.’
This is a time when more and more columnists, writers and academics
use the word Genocide freely in newspapers, magazines, and
conferences. Since the 90th Anniversary of the Genocide, the Istanbul
branch of the Human Rights Association (HRA) commemorates 24th April
every year, without avoiding the use of the word Genocide. Just this
year, on April 24, HRA organized a panel discussion at the Bilgi
University conference hall with Ara Sarafian, the editor of the
uncensored edition of the Blue Book, as one of the participants to
explain why the massacres of 1915 is a Genocide.
And now, regardless of its initiators’ intentions, the campaign is
exposed to manipulations by some who are using it as a means to render
the use of the term Genocide illegitimate in the eyes of the Turkish
public.
This is why I refuse to put my name in the list of signatories.
Yet, I know that many of my friends who feel exactly the same way
signed the statement. I understand and respect them, because I can see
why they did so.
Some of my friends think that apology is the responsibility the state
only and there is no reason for individuals who have nothing in common
with the perpetrators to apologize. I beg to differ. Yes, I do believe
that the obligation to apologize for past crimes lies first and
foremost on the shoulders of states. Yet, I also believe that an
apology is an individual, not just a formal and official, gesture.
So, although I didn’t sign that particular apology statement, I do
apologize to the Armenians and Assyrians here and everywhere across
the world because I am a member of an ethnic and religious group in
whose name the Genocide was committed to Armenians and other native
Christian communities of the Ottoman Empire.
I also apologize because since my birth, I enjoyed, voluntarily or
involuntarily, the advantages of being an ethnic Turk and a Sunni
Muslim. This was true even during the years when I no longer felt
myself a Turk and a Muslim and was against any national or religious
identity, because, to give only one example, I was never made to
suffer to say my name in public and I never faced the outright
question `where are you from?’ I have never been in a situation where
I was taught in the classroom how my great grandparents massacred
Turks and recite an oath every morning by saying I’m ready to
sacrifice myself for the existence of a nationality which I’m not a
member of.
I also apologize because none of us, Muslims in Turkey, can be
positively sure that we haven’t inherited any benefit one way or
another from the enormous wealth of Armenian, Syriac and Greek victims
that was transferred to the Muslim population of Turkey.
I do apologize particularly because of my communist past. I considered
myself part of a community that boasted to be the most progressive
segment of the Turkish society. Yet, I didn’t have the slightest idea
of the fact that I was a member of a nation in whose name a Genocide
was committed. I was one of those who kept preaching people about the
`lies’ told by the bourgeoisie, the ruling classes, claiming with
utmost self-confident that we were the ones to tell them the `truth,’
but who were completely ignorant of the most horrible truth, although
there were enough indications that could have led us to question the
official history.
—————————————– —————————–
3-My Democracy, YouTube Democracy, and Turkish Democracy, Rode Out On
A Rail
By Andy Turpin
WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.) – Hurriyet Daily News reported on Jan. 5 that
Turkey’s Transportation Minister signaled a legal amendment regarding
the ban on YouTube, saying that Turkey’s courts lack the experience to
handle informatics crimes.
Binali Yildirim said the ban on the video-sharing website was a
judicial ruling, not a decision of their government. `We are not
experienced enough about the crimes regarding informatics. This is an
issue that we can overcome by increasing our experience in the
judiciary about how to handle such crimes,’ he told a press
conference.
Two courts have ordered bans on YouTube in Turkey in response to
videos that it deemed insulting to Ataturk, the founder of modern
Turkey. Under Turkish law, it is a crime to insult Ataturk.
`The Internet Board is currently working on this issue. We will send
this to the courts via the Justice Ministry. Therefore we will remove
the misperceptions in the practice. We never aimed to block access to
information, but we cannot sit by as onlookers on activities that
insult our national values openly,’ he said.
In my view there is little that can or needs to be said further about
the endangerment of civil rights in Turkey when the legitimacy of
YouTube, prodigal-son cornerstone of true soap box democracy in our
world today, is even slated to be a question on anyone’s legislative
chopping block.
With both pride and prejudice, I have to call YouTube my generation’s
incarnation of democracy. At least until the rest of us under-40s can
carve out something better.
Turkey is not alone in its lament to the heavens against what it
decries as defamatory media viewpoints against its caricatured
`Fearless Leader’ Ataturk – there’s a good reason that Russian
anti-Putinist bloggers are the most zealous and imprisoned in the
world for their beliefs and YouTube posts.
Which is why it shames me to no end when Americans take derogatory
advantage of a forum like YouTube – where in Mubarak’s Egypt or in
China people risk prison for their mouse clicks – demonstrating the
new institutional radicalism existent in the U.S. military since the
Iraq war [see The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report
expose `A Few Bad Men’, July 7, 2006, or read Weinstein’s With God on
Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s
Military for more information on the subject domestically.]
As for Turkey, if Transportation Minister Yildirim signals the YouTube
ban to go federal on the national level, the hard-line nationalist and
free-thinking Turks alike are all aboard on the wrong track; and there
won’t be any light at the end of that tunnel for the whistle of 2009.
——————————————– —————————
4-Cheering and Hissing
By Garen Yegparian
So, we’ve got an apology. Yay, woo-hoo, ole, yes, fine, maybe, boo,
razz, curses. Where does your reaction fall in this range? Here it
is, one more time, in case you missed what’s been all over the
Armenian media for more than three weeks.
`My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the
denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were
subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I
empathize with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers. I
apologize to them.’ And in the original Turkish: `1915’te Osmanli
Ermenileri’nin maruz kaldigi Buyuk Felaket’e duyarsiz kalinmasini,
bunun inkar edilmesini vicdanim kabul etmiyor. Bu adaletsizligi
reddediyor, kendi payima Ermeni kardeslerimin duygu ve acilarini
paylasiyor, onlardan ozur diliyorum.’
As of this writing the count is 22881, and if you want to check for
yourself, the website is It gives a total count
of signers and shows some of the names, but I couldn’t access
more. The list seems to be spread over 30 pages, but for whatever
reason, only the first would show, with 100 names on it. Another page
shows a different set of names where I actually recognized two
names. One of these is Fethiye Chetin, author of a book about
discovering her Armenian roots, a grandmother. So she’s apologizing
to herself?
This whole thing is weird – uncomfortable, novel, exciting. But is it
any good? How thrilled should we be, if at all? When will the letdown
come? Is a cynical and/or cautious approach the way to go?
First of all, those doing the apologizing are not the one from whom it
must come to be relevant in any meaningful way. It’s the government of
the Republic of Turkey that must apologize, and thus necessarily
recognize the Genocide. In this sense, President Gul’s support of
people who are signing on to this online-petition-apology is welcome
and heartening. But the President of Turkey is not the real governing
power, the Prime Minister is, and he, Erdogan, has staked out an
opposite position. Could they be playing good-cop/bad-cop for Europe’s
benefit?
Let’s talk numbers, somewhat rounded. Turkey’s population, according
to the CIA’s World Factbook, is about 72 million. Of those, some 20
percent, or 14.5 million, are Kurds whose apologizing has been going
on, arguably sufficiently, for many years. At any rate, theirs is a
qualitatively different apology. They were not the state that used
its machinery to organize the killing. That leaves us with 57.5
million Turks. But, again according to the CIA, in 2006, Turkey had
13.15 million Internet users. I’m going to hazard that today, on the
cusp of 2009, that number is 15 million. Again, remove Kurds’ 20
percent (though this is also not quite fair since more Kurds live in
the less developed parts of the country, i.e. Western Armenia, with
proportionately less Internet access), and we’re left with 12 million.
That puts the ratio of petition signers, to date, at less than 0.2
percent – not exactly an overwhelming, awe-inspiring, figure.
Then we have this `great catastrophe’ stuff. Maybe they’re just using
a translation of our own, older, usage of `medz yeghern.’ Regardless,
it’s not `genocide.’ So, it’s at best substandard, more likely
intentionally evasive for political and personal safety reasons, or
possibly intentionally duplicitous. `Ottoman Armenians’ is another
suspicious usage. What about Kemalists’ murders and chronologically
tandem Tatar/Azeri Killings? All these occurred under the same sick
Pan-Turkist/Turanist ideology.
So where do we go from here? Certainly, we should hail and encourage
this effort. It is a step in the right direction. Turkish society and
its collective consciousness must come to terms with its own horrible
past. We can do little but keep the pressure up for them to do so. We
should not be lulled into any overly warm’n’fuzzy sense of
progress. All it would take is another coup by Turkey’s ever
`vigilant’ generals to unravel the years of internal efforts that have
gotten a small portion of Turkey’s people to even this slightly better
point. By all accounts, from an Armenian perspective this is a
positive but far from sufficient step. Finally, we should be very
alert to, and preempt, the inevitable argument that will emanate from
the Turkish government and be taken up by their lackeys worldwide that
runs, `see, we’re making internal progress, no need for international
Genocide recognition.’
Be alert, be encouraging, and be active in the New Year on this and
all other relevant fronts.
—————————————— ———————
5. The `Odar’ Connection in Our Midst
By Tom Vartabedian
Truth be told, there was a time in my more obstinate Armenian life
that any impediment in our lifestyle would affect our overall welfare.
As a parent to three healthy AYF children, I lived to see the day they
would be dating other Armenians, much like I did in my youthful
prime. And when the appropriate time came, to wed Armenians, much like
me.
I got one thing wrong, however. They weren’t me. Nor were they my
wife. Instead, they had a mind and heart of their own, drifted into
their own American world, blessed me with wonderful spouses and four
lovely grandchildren.
Their happiness has been my happiness, much as I rebuked, resented and
later reconciled. The hard core had a more softer approach, much like
a ripened plum from the vine.
In my advanced age, I’m finding a new vitality in our midst. More and
more outsiders are knocking on our door and looking for the welcome
sign. Either they married an Armenian spouse or adopted our heritage
out of respect, curiosity or, in some cases, sympathy.
At least three `odars’ signed up for an Armenian class I was teaching
on the university level because they considered us a resilient people
who remained undaunted by a genocide.
They were amazed at how a nation endured such a tragedy and still had
the fortitude to persevere. In some ways, this Irishman told me,
`Armenia is like the little engine that could, chugging its way to the
summit.’
I found that to be the perfect analogy.
At a time when turbulence is running rampant in our society, respect
for the common man becomes more and more essential. As God-abiding
Christians, we should be worshipping in one church, not veering off in
opposite directions.
And love our neighbor, regardless of the lineage.
I look at my own church and see the impact non-Armenians are
making. In some cases, they’ve become even more involved than the
spouse they wed.
They’ve served as trustees, chaired different boards, presided over
groups and sold the most Prelacy raffle tickets when the time
came. They’ve showed up with hammers and saws, devoted countless hours
to different projects, and even took the liberty to learn the Badarak.
Without them, I suspect our church might have staggered a bit. With
them, it’s become fertile. I would tend to agree that this isn’t a
unique case. I would almost bet that no matter what church where,
there are `odars’ making their impact for the best.
Some have Armenian names after connecting with a male, others an
American identity. One or two may have kept their maiden name for
reasons of pride and conviction.
If there are 4,500 Armenians in my community, I wonder where 4,000 of
them are each April 24 when we commemorate Armenian Martyrs’
Day. Seated in the audience are a number of `odars.’ They may not
understand the language but they are there in support, not in spirit
alone.
I look at Armenian names in the obit page and wonder why they are
getting buried from an American church. Then it dawns on me that they
were Armenian by name only.
It bothers me to see an Armenian surname transposed to a foreign
mongrel with the `ian’ dropped. Cher is Cher. I would have preferred
Cheryl Sarkisian.
I look to the day when my own children return to their church or, at
the very least, meet their heritage halfway. `How did they drift so
far apart?’ I ask myself, perhaps absorbing some of the blame for my
arrogance as a parent.
`Maybe you pushed them over the edge,’ I remind myself.
Many moons ago, when I started out as a writer, I recall visiting the
old Hairenik Building with my correspondence in hand. One day I had
stopped for coffee at a nearby cafeteria and settled into a seat with
a copy of the Hairenik Weekly fresh off the press.
As I was perusing through the issue, I noticed an African-American
seated next table over. My eyes did a double take.
There was this black fellow reading a copy of the Hairenik Daily in
Armenian. It struck my curiosity.
`Pardon me,’ I said. `Are you Armenian?’
`Not a chance,’ he answered.
`But you’re reading Armenian?’ I wondered.
The man laughed. He worked as a linotype operator at the Hairenik and
couldn’t help but learn the language after five years on the job.
I never did catch his name but he sure made an impression with me.
———————————————- —————————–
6. Note to the Editor from Ara Sarafian
Below is a letter sent by historian Ara Sarafian to editors of
Armenian newspapers. In the note, the author clarifies his positions
on a number of issues, following an article that appeared in the
Turkish Daily Hurriyet, in which his views were not properly
represented. Below is the letter.
The Armenian Weekly welcomes all constructive comments and criticism
on the issues raised by Sarafian in the letter.
On Nov. 26, 2008 Hurriyet Daily News published an article based on an
interview titled `Sarafian: Focus on the Diaspora.’ This interview
followed a conference I participated in, organized by the
International Hrant Dink Foundation at Bosphorus University, Istanbul,
on Adana in the late Ottoman period. The Hurriyet Daily News article
caused anxiety in some Armenian circles because of the apparent
harshness of my statements as they had been rendered in the Turkish
press. The most forceful response came from my detractors on Internet
chat groups.
Given the interest created by the Hurriyet Daily News article in some
Armenian circles, I would like to disclose the substance of my
interview for your information. Below are the key points:
1. Context: Turkey Today
Turkey is going through a period of change. It is true that much of
the old anti-Armenian voices are still around, and one can still see
restrictions on free speech in Turkey. However, there are also
significant alternative voices being heard from academics,
journalists, lawyers, diplomats and ordinary people. This multiplicity
of voices seems to be part of the democratization process of Turkey.
20 years ago, Turkish state intellectuals were denying the Armenian
Genocide by saying that nothing happened in 1915; if there were
killings, they were Turks killed by Armenians; that Armenian Genocide
allegations were the product of Armenian terrorism or a Soviet
conspiracy to destabilize Turkey. The official Turkish thesis on the
Armenian Genocide was prescribed by the state with no alternative
voices or dissent allowed.
Today, the Armenian Genocide debate has already shifted inside
Turkey. It is now quite normal to hear that `terrible things happened
to Armenians in 1915,’ that Armenians were poorly treated, that there
were massacres, etc. Turkish citizens are also more and more aware of
the contribution of Armenians to Ottoman-Turkish identity and
culture. Most of the protagonists making a case for the gradual
rehabilitation of Armenians are Turkish liberal intellectuals. This
change has been part of a process that is still in progress.
Armenian intellectuals can play a positive role in engaging
Turkish-Armenian debates as they open up by setting the tone for
better understanding of a shared past, including practical ways to
address the legacy of 1915. A sensitive Armenian approach can foster a
positive outcome in Turkey, while a coarse response will close minds
and play into the hands of Turkish chauvinists.
2. Diaspora – Armenia Scholarship
Over the past twenty-five years, practically all cutting edge
scholarship on the Armenian Genocide has taken place outside of
Armenia. A good part of this work was done by diasporan Armenians, and
many non-Armenians were nurtured or benefited by the efforts of
diasporan Armenians. The Diaspora is at the core of the Armenian
Genocide debate. If Prime Minister Erdogan’s government is looking for
an engaging strategy to resolve the Armenian Genocide issue, it has to
address the Diaspora as much as the Armenian government.
3. Partisan Scholarship – Prosecutorial Approach
Our understanding of the Armenian Genocide has been influenced by
partisan scholarship. This is because a number of academic
institutions and political parties in Armenian communities, such as in
the United States or Great Britain, have nurtured a prosecutorial
approach to the subject. Consequently, some important elements of the
events of 1915 have been distorted. The main thrust of the
prosecutorial approach has been the assertion that the genocide of
Armenians was executed with the thoroughness of the Nazi Holocaust,
and that all Turks and Kurds were involved in the genocidal
process. This approach is best exemplified by Vahakn Dadrian’s `The
History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to
Anatolia to the Caucasus.’
4. The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust
The Armenian Genocide is not the same as the Holocaust. The Young
Turks did not have the apparatus to carry out a genocide on par with
the Holocaust. It is also a fact that many Ottoman officials,
including governors, sub-governors, military personnel, police chiefs
and gendarmes saved thousands of Armenians during the Genocide. Most
Armenians from the province of Adana, for example, were not
killed. This very basic fact is elided in the works of prominent
Armenian historians. There are other examples too. The `Holocaust
model’ of the Armenian Genocide is fundamentally flawed.
5. Archives
Key `Armenian archives’ on the Armenian Genocide remain closed to
critical scholars. This matter concerns all scholars and should be
subject to scrutiny. The most important examples are the archives of
the Jerusalem Patriarchate, which include materials from Ottoman
Turkey related to the Genocide. Partisan scholars have used these
archives in their work, though their assertions cannot be checked. In
the 1980s the Zoryan Institute collected the private papers of
individuals in the Diaspora, yet the materials have remained under
lock and key. Such standards should not be acceptable within our
communities. We should object to them as we object to any manipulation
of Ottoman archives in Turkey today.
6. Diaspora – Turkey
As Turkey continues to examine various taboos, more and more Turks are
discovering their human, material, and historical ties to
Armenians. If Turkey continues to develop in this direction, with
freedom of thought and expression, there is no reason why diasporan
Armenians can not be brought into public and academic debates in
Turkey. The Armenian Diaspora is historically rooted in Turkey.
7. Playing the Victims of the Armenian Genocide
The present generation of Armenians cannot assume the victim role when
discussing Turkish-Armenian relations. Given the seriousness of the
subject, academics and community activists should be expected to be
well informed about their subject matter and give fair consideration
to all parties. The Genocide issue is not a simple question of justice
for Armenians, but a case of justice for everyone. This attitude is
essential for the peaceful resolution of past differences. There is no
room for ignorance and bigotry.
8. Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Expression in Armenia
Recent events have shown once more that freedom of expression is not
something that is universally respected in Armenia. In the past weeks
we have heard of the brutal beating of Edik Baghdasaryan, Chief Editor
of the Armenian daily Hetq, and the President of Investigative
Journalists’ Association of Armenia. His beating was preceded by
attempts to harass and intimidate him with impunity. This is not the
first time that people have been intimidated and beaten for their
critical views in Armenia. In my opinion this lack of freedom has
restricted critical research in Armenia on the Armenian Genocide.
9. Joint Commission
Prime Minister Erdogan suggested that a commission of historians
should be formed by the Turkish and Armenian governments to examine
the events of 1915. I would propose an alternative as follows: (1)
Relevant archives in Turkey should be open to researchers with special
procedures to allow them ready access to records; (2) Independent
groups of specialists from different disciplines should be funded to
collaborate on specific projects related to 1915; (3) The work of such
groups should be open to the scrutiny of third parties; (4) Academic
excellence should be the governing criteria in putting research teams
together, not ethnicity, citizenship or horse-trading amongst Turkish
and Armenian bureaucrats; (5) The examination of archival records
should not be limited to Ottoman records but include other archives
outside of Turkey.