‘LEAVE IT TO THE HISTORIANS’: SCHOLARS FROM THE DIASPORA REFLECT ON THE COMMISSION
By Khatchig Mouradian
19/leave-it-to-the-historians-scholars-from-the-ar menian-diaspora-reflect-on-sub-commission-on-the-h istorical-dimension/
October 19, 2009
The protocols signed by the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers in
Zurich on Oct. 10 contain a clause that states the two sides agree
to "implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim
to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an
impartial and scientific examination of the historical records and
archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations."
In the past few years, the International Association of Genocide
Scholars (IAGS) has issued several statements against the historical
commission proposal. Most recently, the letter from the organization’s
president William Schabas to Armenian President Serge Sarkisian and
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that "acknowledgment
of the Armenian Genocide must be the starting point of any ‘impartial
historical commission,’ not one of its possible conclusions."
In turn, Roger Smith, the chairman of the Academic Board of Directors
of the Zoryan Institute, sent an open letter to Sarkisian that
considered the commission "offensive to all genocide scholars, but
particularly non-Armenian scholars, who feel their work is now being
truly politicized."
Several academics in Armenia have also expressed their views on the
sub-commission through comments and interviews to local media outlets,
with very few coming out in support of it.
In this document, compiled and edited by Armenian Weekly editor
Khatchig Mouradian, Diasporan Armenian scholars who are among the most
prominent in the field of modern Armenian history and social sciences
share their views. These scholars closely follow developments in
Armenian Genocide scholarship, and some are prominent in producing that
scholarship. They, more than any politician, millionaire businessman,
or showbiz personality, would know the problems associated with the
"impartial and scientific examination" of the already established facts
of the Armenian Genocide. This document gives the microphone to them.
***
Hovannisian: Recognition, then commission
Prof. Richard Hovannisian, the chair of modern Armenian history at
UCLA, wrote:
International commissions have significant value in easing historical
tensions and promoting mutual understanding. Such commissions,
presently at work in Central Europe and elsewhere, have registered
noteworthy progress. But these commissions are based on acknowledgement
of particular human tragedies and injustices. They could not function
if one of the parties was a denialist state, intent on obfuscating
the truth and deceiving not only the world community but also its own
people. The record is too long and too well tested for there to be
any doubt about the intent of the denialist state in advocating such
a commission. It is a snare to be avoided and rejected. The proper
order must be recognition of the crime and only then the formation
of commissions to seek the means to gain relief from the suffocating
historical burden.
Balakian: Integrity of scholarship is at stake
Peter Balakian, a professor of the humanities at Colgate University
and author of The Burning Tigris, wrote:
A "historical commission" on the Armenian Genocide must proceed
from the unequivocal truth of the historical record on the Armenian
Genocide. The historical record shows conclusively that genocide
was committed by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1915. This is
the consensus of the International Association of Genocide Scholars
(IAGS) and is the assessment of the legal scholar, Raphael Lemkin,
who invented the concept of genocide as a crime in international law,
and who coined the word genocide in large part on the basis of what
happened to the Armenians in 1915.
Because Turkey has criminalized the study and even mention of the
Armenian Genocide over the past nine decades, it should be impossible
for Turkey to be part of a process that assesses whether or not Turkey
committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915.
If there is a need for an educational commission on the Armenian
Genocide in order to help Turkey understand its history, such a
commission should be made up of a broad range of scholars from
different countries, but not denialist academics or a denialist state.
The international community would not sanction a commission to study
the Holocaust that included denialist scholars, of which there are
many, nor would it invite a head of state like Mr. Ahmadinejad and
his government to be part of such a commission. The integrity of
scholarship and the ethics of historical memory are at stake.
Kevorkian: Chances of successful historical research in Turkey are
close to null
Dr. Raymond H. Kevorkian, the director of Bibliotheque Nubar in Paris
who has authored and co-authored several books including Le Genocide
des Armeniens , The Armenian General Benevolent Union: One Hundred
Years of History, and Les Armeniens, 1917-1939: La Quete d’un Refuge,
wrote:
Although the mission entrusted to the "historical" sub-commission in
the protocols does not explicitly raise the genocide issue, it is clear
that it will be discussed within that framework one way or another. In
an effort to delay qualifying the events of 1915 as genocide for a
few more years, Ankara has tried to make it seem like this was an
adoption of the previous Turkish proposal to establish a "committee
of historians." By assigning this issue back to the undertakings of
a sub-commission, which is itself operating within the context of
official bilateral relations, and by avoiding a direct reference
to the genocide, the Armenian "roadmap" negotiators have clearly
attempted to anticipate the bitter criticism of their opposition. They
must have been persuaded that they had to avoid entering the wicked
game previously proposed to Armenia, which put the 1915 genocide in
doubt. On the other hand, it was inconceivable not to discuss the
genocide-or rather its consequences-within the bilateral context.
The question is to determine whether the aforementioned sub-commission
will deal solely with the genocide file-as it is, in essence, not
empowered with the mission to look into the political aspect of
the file-or if the latter will also be on the negotiation table of
the bilateral commission, entrusted with the whole set of issues to
be settled.
Insofar as this sub-commission has at least partly lost its initial
mission to throw doubt on the facts of 1915, exchanges can prove to
be useful, provided that the required experts are competent and of an
adequate level. Its formation and working methods should be subject
to scrutiny.
A historian’s work should by no means depend on the state. If
historical research has made some progress, it does not owe it to
official "initiatives." Not surprisingly, the reasons this progress
has been achieved outside of Turkey until now are obvious: If there
were a true will to grasp the genocidal phenomenon developed by the
Turkish society in the early 20th century, Turkish authorities should
have promoted a training program for experts worthy of being called
experts. This means amending Turkish legislation and encouraging young
researchers to contribute to this very particular field of history:
the study of mass violence.
The aforementioned elements show that the probability of a
successful work in Turkey is, to this day, close to null, because
the prerequisites to progress are not guaranteed. There has not
been a cultural revolution that would release Turkish society from
the nationalism that is poisoning and forbidding it from seeing its
history in a lucid way. Thus, right from the start, the sub-commission
bears an original sin: its dependency on the authority of the state.
Sanjian: The sub-commission is a victory for Turkey’s Kemalist
establishment
Dr. Ara Sanjian, associate professor of Armenian and Middle Eastern
History and director of the Armenian Research Center at the University
of Michigan-Dearborn, wrote:
Agreeing to the formation of a sub-commission on the so-called
"historical dimension" of relations between Armenia and Turkey is
a concession, which I am afraid Armenian diplomacy will come to
deeply regret. At present, I have no reason to share the optimism of
President Sarkisian and his entourage that this sub-commission will
indeed increase international awareness of the Armenian Genocide.
Recent statements by Turkish leaders give no indication that Ankara
will alter its denialist posture any time soon. We should expect
the current Turkish government to fill its allotted share in the
sub-commission with proved and experienced deniers. Assisted by an army
of diplomats, as well as American and other public relations firms on
Ankara’s payroll, these Turkish representatives will in all likelihood
use the sub-commission to engage the Armenian side in protracted yet
unproductive exchanges. Their objective-to give to the outside world
a false impression that Turkey is not afraid of investigating the
truth and that it is committed to an ostensibly serious endeavor in
this regard-is unlikely to change. Ankara will use the sub-commission
to continue to discourage outside parties from taking a principled
stand on the Armenian Genocide issue and to delay indefinitely any
meaningful discussion with Armenians on the legal, political, social,
economic, and cultural repercussions of the genocide. Because of these
Turkish tactics, professional historians have long been extremely
careful not to get dragged into direct exchanges with deniers, and
thus provide the latter with undeserved academic legitimacy. The
protocols negotiated by the authorities in Yerevan have unfortunately
lent Turkish state-sponsored deniers this long-sought opportunity. We
should expect Ankara to use the sub-commission card effectively in its
persistent quest to keep this unsavory episode from the late Ottoman
era solely within the realm of a supposed academic dispute. Even if
the protocols do not eventually go into force and the Armenia-Turkish
border remains closed, Turkish lobbyists will constantly refer to
the concession by Yerevan.
Moreover, even in the unlikely scenario of President Sarkisian being
forced to resign under pressure from the opposition in Armenia, we can
expect pro-establishment Turkish activists to aggrandize Sarkisian
as a pacifist supposedly overwhelmed by extremist Armenian groups,
and all this as part of continuous official Turkish attempts to avoid
facing the full consequences of the World War I genocide.
I do not place any hope on the possible participation of Swiss and
other international experts in the workings of this sub-commission. In
this highly charged politicized atmosphere involving many nations,
independent-minded experts from third countries will either prefer
to stay away or Ankara will try hard to exclude them, perhaps with
the tacit support of fellow western governments, which maintain deep
strategic, military, and financial interests in Turkey. Those who will
end up on the sub-commission will always be under constant pressure
from their respective foreign offices to be extremely careful of the
political ramifications of what they say, both during the meetings
of the sub-commission or outside, and not incur Ankara’s ire.
The formation of the sub-commission is a victory for Turkey’s Kemalist
establishment. It will probably use the sub-commission not only to
impose its denialist posture on the international scene as a supposedly
legitimate "alternative view," but it may get encouraged further and
tighten the noose-through a more vigorous use of Article 301 of the
penal code and other means-against various Turkey-based challengers
of Kemalist myths, including issues well beyond the confines of the
Armenian Genocide. Within this context, growing exchanges between
Armenian scholars and activists and Turkish opponents of rigid Kemalism
should continue, irrespective of the protocols.
The protocols may eventually be ratified, paving the way for the
sub-commission. While listing the reasons behind my personal opposition
to its formation was not difficult, the issue of how to handle this
unpleasant entity, now that it has been imposed on the historians’
profession, remains to me more problematic. Should Armenian and
non-Armenian experts of the 1915 genocide serve on this sub-commission
and provide unwarranted legitimacy to deniers likely to represent
Turkey? However painful such a climb-down may be to universally
acknowledged genocide experts, the alternative may see less competent
figures, either seeking undeserved celebrity status or unable-for
one non-scholarly reason or another-to refuse President Sarkisian
a favor, arguing the genocidal nature of the Armenian atrocities
inside the sub-commission. From this angle, the establishment of the
sub-commission and the opposition it has generated among established
genocide scholars seem to have created a win-win situation for deniers.
Simonian: One signature offers what Turkey couldn’t achieve in decades
Hovann Simonian, the co-author of Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics
of the Caspian Region and editor of The Hemshin: History, Society
and Identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey, wrote:
The recently signed protocols between Armenia and Turkey create a
sub-commission "on the historical dimension" that aims at conducting
"an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and
archives." The creation of this sub-commission can be considered a
major success of Turkish and other deniers of the Armenian Genocide.
It brings to fruition their long-held objective of casting a shadow
on the objectivity and quality of the historical works affirming the
veracity of the Armenian Genocide. Unable to discredit these works
with their own studies, despite the large financial resources at their
disposal, deniers will from now on hide behind the sub-commission and
insist on waiting for its conclusions to block any discussion of the
Armenian Genocide in international forums.
Another constituent that will be comforted by the creation of this
sub-commission includes the waverers and bystanders of all sorts who,
rather than bothering to read the authoritative literature published
on the topic, claim to adopt a neutral or objective stance, stating
that there are "two sides to the story"-the Armenian version and the
Turkish one.
By agreeing to the establishment of the sub-commission on the
historical dimension, the Armenian government has with one signature
offered the Turkish state what the latter had failed to achieve in
decades, in spite of enormous financial expenditures and political
efforts.
Semerdjian: Protocols engage in genocide denial
In an article written for the Armenian Weekly titled "What do Google
and the Protocols have in common?" Dr. Elyse Semerdjian, an associate
professor of Islamic world history at Whitman College, wrote:
The protocols signed by Armenia and Turkey on Oct. 10 engage in
denial of the Armenian Genocide on several levels. Not only are the
injustices of the past ignored, but those injustices, rather than be
acknowledged as a condition of peace, are relegated to an undesignated
commission that will pursue "an impartial scientific examination of
the historical records." This statement is in effect a call for a
commission to bury the issue of the Armenian Genocide once and for
all by reducing it to a "historical dimension" rather than a genocide,
a massacre, or any source of conflict for that matter.
To begin, the term "impartial" indicates that the protocols are
written in state language, not the language of historians. In the
field of history, we have come a long way towards realizing that
impartiality doesn’t exist. Many of us in the field concede that it
is impossible for a historian to put aside their subjectivity while
researching and writing history. Historians choose their archives and
their sources. That selection process, although it can be based on
a balanced scientific method, can on many occasions alter the results.
Most importantly, impartiality is called into question when we
recognize that the historian’s ability to write history is greatly
impacted by the sources in their possession. I often imagine
the following scenario: After World War II, Germany provides only
controlled access to its archives and releases only documents relating
to Jewish uprisings, for example the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. With
limited sources, a history much like the "provocation thesis"
popular in Turkey today would have taken shape in Germany. The
thesis goes: Armenians rebelled, Turks defended themselves, and the
result was mutual death, a civil war not a genocide. This kind of
history could easily be written based on scientific and "impartial"
methods, especially if a historian thought they had covered all
sources available. Many of us in the field of history are familiar
with the kinds of sources made public regarding the Armenians that
emphasize the moments in which Armenians rebelled against orders of
deportation; these sources are easily found in Turkish publications
that line library bookshelves and are sometimes placed on exhibition.
What the commission proposal fails to recognize is that although
historians can sometimes agree upon the facts of history, debates
often multiply once historians answer the "how" and "why" questions.
Historians may be settled on facts of history (for example,
"the American Revolution happened"), but how or why it happened is
another matter. How would a commission, as part of a dialogue between
nations, manage the multiplicity of historical interpretations? How
would Turkey, a state that currently legally bars any discussion
of atrocities committed against Armenians in World War I according
to Article 301 of its penal code, be a trustworthy partner in any
dialogue? Currently, Turkey threatens intellectuals who dare to speak
out (Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk currently faces yet another trial);
how could it, at the same time, allow freedom of expression on such
a commission?
Freedom of speech issues aside, as a history professor, I struggle
against attempts to homogenize history, especially as many incoming
students are taught with high school textbooks that present history as
fixed, while in the academic world history is much more complex. I
point to this tendency existing in students, but truth be said,
most people want a one-dimensional answer to complex historical
issues-and states most certainly do. The internet, particularly
Google, is a place people go to get those easy, one-dimensional
answers. One student came to class having searched the internet on
that day’s subject matter and asked: "So, I was surfing the internet
last night and saw that according to the web the Armenian Genocide
didn’t really happen even though your syllabus frames it as though
it did. What’s up with that?" Although our reading that day covered
the issue of genocide denial, explaining how the Armenian Genocide
had devolved from a historical reality to a "debate" in history,
it was the Googleability of the subject that took precedent that day
because it offered the "one fixed answer." Of course, Google is based
on algorithims, rather than the truth of claims found on one website
versus another. It can’t replace science; it is no oracle of Delphi.
But none of this reasoning can undermine the fact that a first hit
is often interpreted as the most important answer; and in cases it’s
not, it is usually the first link clicked on. On Google, where the
Armenian Genocide is concerned, it is a historical "debate" next to
global warming and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The protocols, like Google, treat the Armenian Genocide as a debate
by avoiding the admission of guilt and by reducing the complexities of
history into a singular answer in the service of the state. Imbedded in
the logic of the protocols is the notion that if we are scientific and
impartial enough, we can find the one answer to our unnamed problem. If
there is to be any future commission, even if it does result in
one uniform statement, it is not the end of a debate, as there will
still be independent historians writing different histories. However,
the commission’s ruling will be presented as the new golden rule,
Google’s first hit-the one singular answer to the historical question
of genocide. This answer will be cited by journalists and students
alike as a definitive study because it was balanced and mutually agreed
upon. Outside historians will be marginalized as the commission will be
"impartial," whereas historians working independently will not have
the same weight, for they will be biased and partisan.
The idea of a commission is a concession granted to Turkey that
indicates there really will be no scientific process at play.
History-by-commission in itself is a partial process. It will begin
with the premise that the genocide needs to be proven, putting Armenia
in the weakest possible position even as a majority of scholars agree
that a genocide occurred. By signing the agreement as currently worded,
Armenia has taken the minority position of denial over the majority
position of acceptance.
The idea of a commission is nothing new. South Africa had its Peace
and Reconciliation Commission, Rwanda has its National Unity and
Reconciliation Commission that is working on intercommunal dialogues,
as well as the writing of a new national history that would cover the
Rwandan Genocide. These projects were initiated because states tend
to need uniformity of historical interpretation, and new national
histories need to be agreed upon to salvage the state after the
collective traumas of apartheid and genocide. There are two differences
with these projects: First, they acknowledge that violence happened,
and even with that acknowledgement there is a lack of satisfaction
from victims who in some cases feel they have not been given due
justice. Second, they deal with a national rebuilding project,
and part of that includes a rewriting of the events of history, a
sculpting of the common memory, if you will. None of these elements
are present in the protocols. No recognition. No purging of painful
memories of genocide. The fact that there are two nations at stake
begs the question: Can history-by-commission serve two masters?
Historians who are selected to work on the commission agreed upon
by Armenia and Turkey will be part of a bogus endeavor-stooges in a
commission geared to write history for the victor under the pretense
of democratic exchange. The protocols’ use of "impartial" also gives
the underlying denial a sanitized, scientific feel. A 2004 study by
Jules and Maxwell Boykoff found that the use of balanced language by
journalists to discuss global warming was biased because it gave the
impression that there was a debate in the scholarly community over
its existence, while international conferences on the subject have
presented a virtual consensus. Creating the impression of a debate
implies a 50/50 split among the experts. Analogous to the protocols,
a similar balance of denialists and affirmers of the Armenian Genocide
on a future commission would presume that experts in the field were
split half and half, when to the contrary a clear majority of scholars
affirm that this event happened. This is the way in which innocuous
terms like "balance" can produce bias as a way of consolidating a
position-in this case genocide denial-rather than starting with a
position of admission of guilt. The bottom line, as I see it, is that
the protocols put Armenia in the weakest possible position, whereby
it will become a collaborator in a bogus commission geared towards
propagating the denial of its own genocide. This is disconcerting as
both an Armenian and a historian.
Historians are always searching the dusty recesses of the past for
lessons; I have chosen Greek epic for some insight into the protocols.
Homer chose to end his epic with a bloodbath: The hero Odysseus
slaughters the suitors who defiled his home. Through Zeus’ divine
intervention, the memory of the slaughter is erased from Ithacan
minds in order to protect Odysseus who would otherwise be endangered
under the rules of blood vengeance; after all, the relatives of the
suitors had a right to revenge according to custom. The gods choose
to obliterate the communal memory in order to create a peace without
justice. If we move forward to the present, a very different peace is
created in the protocols. Rather than wipe out the memory of injustice
committed against Armenians, the signatories have chosen to ignore
issues of communal memory and justice altogether. In fact, they have
chosen to not even name the source of conflict between the two parties
in an attempt to assure collective amnesia. We learn from the ancient
Greeks that absolute denial of justice may have only been possible
through divine intervention; for, if left to societal norms and intact
memories, Odysseus would have surely been punished for his actions.
Arkun: Historical record clear, political solution needed
Aram Arkun, a New York based scholar who has conducted archival
research and published material on various aspects of modern Armenian
history and the Armenian Genocide, wrote:
An intergovernmental commission dealing with the consequences of the
Armenian Genocide would indeed be a useful body if set up properly. A
politically appointed historical commission, on the other hand, can end
up as quite problematic, and even disastrous, under present conditions.
First, presumably one of the parties directly involved in the
appointment of the historians would be the Republic of Turkey. This
is a state that still can legally punish reference to the Armenian
Genocide by its citizens, whose high government officials have
repeated stated their clear opinion that no such genocide took place,
and whose state-sponsored scholars and scholarly bodies continue to
publish works intended to justify the actions of the Ottoman Empire
during World War I concerning the Armenians. This does not promise
well in terms of the freedom of action and opinion of the Turkish
scholars appointed by the government.
Secondly, as part of a political process, this historical commission
would not be, per se, a scholarly commission, but rather a tool
for settling political issues. The Turkish and Armenian states,
as the involved parties, are not equals in terms of their power and
influence. The former is much more powerful than the latter, and so
would have a much greater opportunity to both exert pressure on the
workings of the commission and on the interpretation of its results.
Furthermore, the United States and the other large states involved
do not necessarily have any stake in a historically "correct" outcome.
All they appear interested in is a resolution of any kind of the
Armenian Genocide issue, which causes them periodic political
headaches. Thus, if this commission is considered to be a type of
"reconciliation commission," it may not be in the position to act in
a pragmatically just fashion.
Thirdly, the very creation of such a historical commission will both
divide Armenian communities in Armenia and throughout the world,
as well as give cover to those in academia and politics who would
for non-academic reasons prefer to see the genocide recede as an issue.
Already, Western media coverage is reverting back to a troubling
"neutral" description of the events of 1915 which, contrary to all
the extant archival evidence and widely accepted scholarly analyses,
characterize the genocide as an unresolved matter. A "split decision"
by this commission could indefinitely prolong such a vacillatory
approach.
In sum, there is sufficient scholarly work extant on the Armenian
Genocide to understand its basic nature as genocide without
an intergovernmental commission, and there even exist some
nongovernmental structures in which both Armenian and Turkish
scholars can operate. Further academic discussion is, of course,
necessary and commendable if done in a scholarly framework, but
the problematic potential format of this commission would make both
its scholarly and political conclusions suspect. Furthermore, the
political consequences of such a commission will be both durable and
enforceable irrespective of the truth of its conclusions. Armenia
and Turkey have to live together as neighbors, and for this reason
(and of course many others), a political solution has to be reached
on the issues connected to the Armenian Genocide. But it does not
seem as if the time is ripe for this yet. Hopefully, in the meantime,
basic issues such as open borders and trade can be resolved to the
benefit of those living on both sides of the border.
Kaligian: Commission’s mere existence will be exploited by the
Turkish government
Dr. Dikran Kaligian, the author of Armenian Organization and Ideology
under Ottoman Rule, 1908-1914 and managing editor of the Armenian
Review, wrote:
The proposal to have an "impartial scientific examination of the
historical records and archives" is dangerous on a number of grounds.
Firstly, no matter the composition of the commission or how its
mandate is framed, its mere existence will be exploited by the Turkish
government in its genocide denial campaign. Turkey will ensure that the
"examination" drags on for years, and neither the U.S. Congress nor
any other legislature will consider recognizing the Armenian Genocide
while there is an "ongoing examination." Likewise, Turkey has ensured
that the genocide will not be raised during its negotiations to join
the European Union. This replicates what happened in 2001, when the
European Commission-citing the formation of the Turkish Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC)-excluded all mention of recognition
of the genocide from the resolutions on Turkey’s accession to the EU.
Secondly, the decades of research and dozens of books already written
on the Armenian Genocide will be immediately discredited as "biased and
unscientific" because the "impartial and scientific" examination will
have begun. The consensus among all genocide scholars, as embodied by
the statement of the International Association of Genocide Scholars
(IAGS), will thus be undermined. Those few Turkish scholars who
have bravely tried to educate the people of Turkey about their own
history can be tarred as "agents of the Armenians," and their lives
once again endangered because the Armenian and Turkish governments
have agreed that their work was "biased."
Thirdly, because all the past genocide research has been discredited,
all past decisions made based on it will be brought into question.
There will not be a a state board of education that includes the
genocide in its curriculum, or a newspaper that changed its policy and
began allowing its reporters to use the words "Armenian Genocide,"
or a university that hosts a panel or a course that includes the
genocide, that will not be pressured by the Turkish government and
its lobby to reverse its position because even Armenia agrees that
the issue needs more study.
Panossian: Take commission seriously, but don’t lose sleep over it
Dr. Razmik Panossian, the author of The Armenians: From Kings and
Priests to Merchants and Commissars, wrote:
Many Armenians in the diaspora are dead against a historical
commission. They assume that it will question the very existence of the
genocide. This is a correct assumption insofar as Turkey’s intentions
are to use the commission to deny the Armenian Genocide-or at the very
least to use it to minimize international pressure for recognition.
But this does not have to be the case, and the denial of the genocide
is not an inevitable outcome of the commission. Commissions do not
work if there is no political will on all sides to make them work.
Armenians must come to the commission with the starting point of
the reality of the genocide. The questions they should put on the
table must therefore center on the effects of 1915 (e.g., the legal,
political, and cultural ramifications of genocide). The Turkish side
will naturally want to examine a different set of questions. If there
is no common ground for discussion, so be it. A commission can easily
be rendered irrelevant, it could be dragged on and on; in short,
it could fail.
All eggs do not have to be put in one basket. The genocide issue
must not be reduced to the commission. It might be in the interest
of the Armenian and Turkish republics to focus on the commission, but
this does not meant that the diaspora (i.e., certain elements of it)
must follow suit. It is quite legitimate for diasporan organizations
to have their own "foreign policy" that does not necessarily mirror
the foreign policy of Armenia. There is historical precedence for this
kind of "duality" in Armenian politics. Hopefully such a "dual track"
approach will be somewhat coordinated and mutually reinforcing. In
concrete terms, this would mean that while Armenia deals with the
commission, the diaspora-as citizens of various host countries-can
and should continue its various recognition efforts irrespective of
the commission. Yes, this will be more difficult, but the efforts
must continue, as must the efforts to engage with progressive Turkish
civil society and academics.
The debates around the protocols and the commission highlight once
again the emptiness of the oft-repeated but fictitious notion of
national "unity" as applied to politics. The diaspora and the republic
have certain commonalities, but also differing interests and needs.
Their means of dealing with the genocide can legitimately be different
as well. This is not a problem, but a healthy reality. In fact,
the genius and strength of the Armenian nation is contingent on its
multilocality and its differences-as long as these are more or less
complementary and articulated reasonably and peacefully.
Let Armenians and Turks not be afraid of the commission-and both
sides are afraid of it-but engage with it based on their multiple
(and contradictory) interests. Let’s take it seriously, but not lose
sleep over it. If it succeeds, fine. If it fails, that’s ok too.
Der Matossian: Involvement of governments defies the basic tenets of
writing history
Dr. Bedross Der Matossian, a lecturer in the faculty of history at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), wrote:
The inclusion of the historical commission as part of the
Armenian-Turkish protocols is one of the most serious blows to the
historical research of the Armenian Genocide. From the perspective
of a historian, the establishment of a joint commission by two
governments in order to investigate the events of 1915 as part of their
"normalization package" contradicts the craft of historianship.
The involvement of governments in initiating and promoting this kind
of understanding defies the basic tenets of writing history. In this
instance, the victimized group agrees to establish a historical
commission with the "perpetrator" group in order to examine the
veracity of an event that has long been accepted by international
scholars as the mass murder of the indigenous Armenian population of
the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide is a fact; it can neither be
subject to a historical compromise nor be the victim of a Machiavellian
diplomatic plan.
In addition, attempting to question the veracity of the research
conducted thus far is itself a travesty of colossal magnitude that
mainly aims at serving the regional interests of international powers.
This does not mean that the motives, processes, and factors that led to
the genocide cannot be the subject of an honest academic discussion
by all historians, regardless of their ethnic background. I say
regardless of their ethnic background because in the past decade
the meetings between Turkish and Armenian historians have resembled
a soccer game in which a third party always gets involved as the
mediator. Historians who are interested in debating the history
of the Armenian Genocide should participate in conferences and
workshops by first representing themselves as historians and not as
Armenians or Turks. Ethnicity should not be a criterion for their
historianship in venues where they talk as "Armenians" or "Turks,"
thereby recreating the fixed identities and contributing to the
political interests of the "perpetrator" group. On the other hand,
a dialogue that does not address the power asymmetry between Turks
and Armenians, and the politico-historical reasons for the current
powerlessness of the Armenian position, serves the needs of the more
powerful entity in the equation.
The aim of the Turkish government in this initiative is clear:
to reach some kind of a historical compromise about the Armenian
Genocide that satisfies the Turkish side. A sincere discussion of
the Armenian Genocide requires the involvement of honest scholars
who treat their material with utmost professionalism, integrity,
and sobriety in their understanding of the historical, political,
legal, and ethical dimensions of several shades of state-sanctioned
denialism-anything from relativization to the outright distortion of
facts and chronology under the cloak of "scholarship" and "dialogue."
Theriault: Sarkisian and Nalbandian have rescued the failed Turkish
denial campaign
Dr. Henry Theriault, a professor of philosophy at Worcester State
College and author of several articles on genocide denial, wrote:
The notion of a "historical commission" to bring together the "points
of view" of Armenians and Turks on their "common history" is not new.
It is a variation of the denialist tactic of presenting the opposition
of falsified history (the Armenian Genocide did not occur) to
historical fact (the Armenian Genocide did occur). After the Turkish
government’s suppression of global awareness of the Armenian Genocide
began to fail in 1965, and the truth started coming out in compelling
primary documents and powerful scholarly analyses based on them in
the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Turkish government shifted its approach to
denial and presenting "the other side of the story." The tactic was
simple: All it had to do was get its false version of history taken
seriously as a mere possibility alongside the true facts of history,
to rob those true facts of their rightful certainty. The deniers
turned the actual situation of falsification against fact into the
appearance of one perspective against another. This appealed to those
with embedded commitments to "open-mindedness," "fair play," and even
freedom of speech. Indeed, the Turkish government and its denialist
functionaries in the United States and elsewhere intentionally played
on those laudable commitments in presenting a perversion of critical
thinking that violates the very basics of sound evidence evaluation.
"Historical commissions" consisting of those who assert the truth
and those who assert falsehood, in equal balance, became a way of
further legitimizing the false as a valid "perspective" on history. A
historical commission has two functions. First, because there is no way
for those who are committed to truth and those committed to falsity to
come to a consensus, this method can permanently forestall a "decision"
on whether the Armenian Genocide occurred, which is what the Turkish
government will happily settle for. After all, if there is no official,
universal fact, then no acknowledgment need happen and no reparations
made. Second, it establishes the philosophically nonsensical method of
determining truth by splitting the difference between opposing views,
rather than looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion
determined by that evidence. History becomes a power play between
competing interests, not a matter of what really happened as it has
been captured in documents that, in the case of the Armenian Genocide,
are as unambiguous as they are numerous.
The danger here, by the way, is not just limited to the Armenian
Genocide. Denial of this sort quite literally is an assault on truth,
as Israel Charny has written. This crude weapon is something of an
intellectual nuclear bomb. Not only does it effectively deny the
Armenian Genocide, but it advances the notion that all truth is just
a matter of splitting the difference between fact and falsity. Do
you hate Jews and want to stop recognition of the Holocaust? Just
say it didn’t happen and people will start to think the truth is in
the middle of "what Jews say" and your denialism. Upset that African
Americans are recognized as oppressed by the legacy of slavery? Tell
everyone that, contrary to "abolitionist propaganda," U.S. slaves
actually had it better than Africans in their time. Sooner or later,
people will start to think the truth is in the middle. Don’t like the
effect recognition of global warming is having on your oil company’s
profits? Just fund some scientists to say there is no global warming.
People will get confused and start to think the truth is somewhere in
the middle. And so on. Even if it is intended for a "surgical strike"
against Armenians, this weapon’s blast radius ends up taking out
the very possibility of truth in history, science, and ethics. It
renders evidence and logical inference based on it meaningless-or no
more meaningful than groundless assertions and wild accusations. It
undoes hundreds of years of philosophical and scientific progress. Fact
becomes impossible. Critical thinking is replaced by what I have termed
"academic relativism," in which every claim, no matter how ungrounded
on evidence, is considered perpetually legitimate.
The catalysts of that progress were quite clear about what real
critical thought and evidence evaluation are. Descartes certainly
doubted everything he could think-virtually every thought he had-just
as deniers want us to do of the historical facts of the Armenian
Genocide, the Holocaust, U.S. slavery, Native American Genocides,
and on and on. But deniers want this to be the endpoint, the stopping
point of thought. For Descartes, it was the beginning: It happens
in Meditation 1, not 6. The rest of the Meditations consist of a
carefully building of certainty as Descartes digs himself out of the
morass of absolute skepticism. In the case of the Armenian Genocide,
this building process has already occurred. Deniers forced it in
the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. And, after decades of intense,
evidence-based research, scholars have constructed an unassailable
castle of truth regarding the Armenian Genocide. By the 2000’s,
rational people who studied the evidence simply had to recognize the
veracity of the genocide, as Samantha Power and so many others new
to the issue did not hesitate to. The process suggested by J. S. Mill
actually worked: A true idea was challenged by a false one in a manner
that spurred greater research and reasoning to establish the true idea
on an even firmer foundation than would otherwise have been produced.
Indeed, because of the aggressive, well-funded, geopolitically
supported Turkish denial campaign that has lasted for decades, those
establishing the facts of the Armenian Genocide have had to meet
such almost impossibly high standards that the result has been the
establishment of the truth-not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but
beyond the shadow of a doubt. The evidence of the Armenian Genocide
has been tested against the harshest challenges and most dishonest
tactics, and it has come through with compelling truth intact. It has
been confirmed again and again, against assault after assault. The
"doubts" that still exist are a testament to the great extent of
the financial, political, cultural, media, and academic resources of
Turkish propagandists and the great geopolitical force behind them,
not a weakness in the evidence or scholarly analysis of it. Despite
all the resources and power arrayed against it, the Armenian Genocide
is recognized by objective scholars and others around the world.
This is significant, because another feature of the historical
commission model is that somehow the difference over whether the
genocide occurred is an ethnic tension between Turks and Armenians.
This is as false as denial of the genocide itself is. On the side
of truth are Armenians to be sure, but also countless non-Armenians
whose sole motivation is witnessing the truth and countless Turks
who have had enough of their government’s lies. On the other side
is merely a portion of the Turkish population, together with a few
academic and political mercenaries acting out of obvious interests
and motives. The notion of a Turkish-Armenian historical commission
suggested by the protocols, as an inter-ethnic negotiation process,
is inconsistent with true demographics of the manufactured "conflict"
over the truth of the genocide.
The Turkish denial effort has failed. The latest version of the
historical commission ploy is a desperate attempt to undercut the
final victory of the truth. It is not unlike Ataturk’s "revolution"
to rescue Turkish genocidal ultra-nationalism from its defeat in
World War I. Let us not forget how successful this unjust movement was.
Nothing betrays more obviously the resilience of this anti-Armenianism
than the refusal by Turkey to include recognition of the Armenian
Genocide in the protocols and its reinsertion of denial into
Armenian-Turkish relations. As Israel Charny has written, denial is
the celebration of the denied genocide and the mocking of the victim
group. It is the threat of renewed genocide and the assertion of the
power of the perpetrator group over the victim group.
As after 1918, the great powers have again lined up against
Armenians-complete with another decisive reversal of U.S. policy
toward Armenians, now in the form of President Obama’s flip-flop on
Armenian Genocide recognition. But even this pressure is not enough.
Too many good souls around the world understand too well what is
going on to be manipulated by recycled denialism. What is necessary
to open the door again to denial and to undermine four decades of
decisive progress is a few Armenians in key positions turning the
knob. If Armenians acquiesce in denial, suddenly all the evidence
becomes irrelevant: Armenians themselves recognize that the issue
is not settled and that a new inquiry-balancing deniers with those
who claim genocide-is needed. With the inclusion of the historical
commission in the protocols, a four decade-long process by historians,
political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, literary scholars,
philosophers, and more, which has proven the Armenian Genocide
beyond a shadow of a doubt, is dismissed. Now the real process will
begin-complete with a fully legitimate denialist perspective.
Few stop to question exactly which Armenians are legitimizing denial
with their signatures, whom they represent-and do not represent-and
why they have come to accept a process legitimizing denial. They are
Armenian and that is enough. Even many supporters of Armenian Genocide
recognition are confused. And so the current Armenian government, led
by Serge Sarkisian and Edward Nalbandian, has done what no one else
could have-not a legion of Turkish diplomats or squadrons of deniers.
Sarkisian and Nalbandian have rescued the failed Turkish denial
campaign.
Mamigonian: Historical facts are not negotiated, they are studied
Marc Mamigonian, the director of academic affairs at the National
Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) in Belmont,
Mass., wrote:
It is understood that states such as Armenia and Turkey must resolve
their differences through political processes of negotiation. In
scholarship, however, historical facts are not negotiated but studied.
And while new research continues to expand and enrich our
understanding, the basic historical facts of the Armenian Genocide
are well established.
It is difficult to have confidence in a historical sub-commission
established as part of a political negotiating process-let alone one
that involves two states with as palpable a power discrepancy as the
one that exists between Turkey and Armenia.
Furthermore, a "scientific examination" of the history of the Armenian
Genocide, such as the protocols appear to call for, has been conducted
by researchers for decades; and the large and continually growing
body of scholarship and documentation testifies to this.
Thanks to the documentary and analytical work that has been done
by the first generation of professional scholars of the Armenian
Genocide, the scholarship has moved beyond "proving the genocide"
and entered into more sophisticated considerations, even though
aggressive genocide denial continues unabated.
Whatever relations are negotiated between Armenia and Turkey as states,
the way forward for Armenians and Turks everywhere is through an honest
recognition of historical events, including but not limited to the
Armenian Genocide. Everything else proceeds from that starting point.
Khatchig Mouradian is the editor of the Armenian Weekly. He is working
towards a Ph.D. in genocide studies at Clark University in Worcester,
Mass.
The Armenian Weekly thanks Nayiri Arzoumanian for copyediting and Houry
Tontian for the translation from French of Prof. Kevorkian’s comments.