LIBARIDIAN: SCHOLARS AND THE POLITICS OF GENOCIDE RECOGNITION
Posted on July 30, 2013
A Response to articles in the Asbarez and the Armenian Weekly
by Jirair Libaridian
To read the Armenian Weekly’s response to this article, click here.
I read with much interest Mr. Ara Khachatourian’s article titled
“Armenian Scholars at the Center of Genocide Denial” (Asbarez, June
5, 2013, reproduced in the Armenian Weekly), and “The Case Against
Legitimizing Genocide Deniers: Scholars Speak Up” by the staff of
the Armenian Weekly (June 7, 2013), reproduced in Asbarez.
The fundamental point raised in these two articles and by the five
scholars quoted in the latter is the following: By participating
in an academic conference in early June in Tbilisi organized by a
denialist academic, Professor Hakan Yavuz, and sponsored partially
by the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA, an organization accused of
being at the forefront of denialist efforts in American academia),
Armenian scholars are legitimizing the denialist position of that
scholar and organization.
I happen to have been invited to the conference in question as a
keynote speaker. After much deliberation that considered such concerns,
I accepted the invitation. (That I was unable to attend the conference
due to a health problem is irrelevant. I stand behind my decision
to attend.)
Leaving aside the sensationalism of the first article and the lack of
professionalism of the second, I appreciate the concerns that underlie
both. I hope that what began as a series of blind criticisms may be
turned into the beginning of a shift in our methodology of discussing,
debating and inquiring on issues critical to academia and to the
wider community.
I have taken on the challenge presented in Mr. Khachatourian’s piece
to argue the case for accepting the invitation to participate in that
conference. My first attempt at a full response to the above mentioned
articles amounted to no less than a booklet. Leaving such a text for
a more appropriate venue, I would like to bring the attention of your
readers to the following:
First on the question of methodology:
1) In preparing and publishing these articles in the Asbarez and the
Armenian Weekly, the authors/editors never contacted me to inquire
into my reasons for accepting the invitation, even if such a query
might have served the purpose of better assaulting my decision. There
is also no indication in these articles that these authors contacted
any of the other scholars who had also accepted the invitation to
participate. This omission may be understandable in the case of Mr.
Khachatourian’s almost-libelous piece. But the contravention of such
simple professional standards in journalism by the authors and editors
of the Armenian Weekly, in an article based on interviews with five
respectable academics, is less understandable.
Opinion articles are, professionally speaking, based on independent
factual reporting. Neither the Asbarez nor the Armenian Weekly printed
or produced an article that informed the public of the basic facts and
the essence of the controversy. Opinion articles would then follow,
but meanwhile the reader has a basis of facts and conflicting positions
by which to assess the opinion pieces.
Wasn’t it possible for the editors of these newspapers to imagine
that another writer could produce quotes by another five scholars or
more whose opinions regarding participation in the Tbilisi conference
would be the opposite of what five protagonists quoted in that article
had to say?
2) To my knowledge, the five scholars who were critical of those
who accepted the invitation to the Tbilisi conference did not and
have not shown any interest in finding out my reason(s) for having
accepted the invitation; nor is there any evidence in that article
that they inquired with others for their reasons.
Two of the five scholars in question were in contact with me long
before the conference was to convene in Tbilisi and certainly prior
to the publication of the article in the Weekly. (At least two others
could have been, if there was a question in their mind, since they
know me personally.) Neither academic was interested in the reasons
for my decision. An air of absolute certainty seems to have covered
this issue.
Indeed, I suggested to both scholars in contact with me that
a workshop be organized where academics and scholars of various
opinions could meet and discuss the pros and cons of participating in
the conference. Even if we emerged without a consensus, at the least
we could have mutual respect and understanding for the positions we
have taken. There was little or no interest in such an exchange on
the part of the two scholars in question. I have also not seen any
evidence that others in the same group or supporting the position of
that group ever thought about such a forum.
3) I have great respect for all five of the scholars quoted in
the Weekly article, as scholars. But being a good scholar does not
qualify anyone to be the sole source of political wisdom and strategic
judgment. I would not trust the political judgment of anyone who
is not at least interested in the logic of someone who disagrees
with him/her. But I need to point out that we are dealing with the
politics of Genocide recognition and the factuality of the Genocide
to accept at face value the assessment of good scholars.
At the end, we are not talking about the factuality of the Genocide;
rather we are looking at the politics of Genocide recognition.
Second, some questions regarding the logic of our detractors:
1) Why is the assault against the participants directed against
scholars of Armenian origin? Are they the only ones who would have
“legitimized” the position of the denialists? Is such legitimation
by Armenian scholars the most important? How about the few dozen
non-Armenians who accepted to speak at the conference or to present
papers? How about the President of the most important professional
association in the field, the Middle East Studies association, who
addressed the conference, also as a keynote speaker?
2) Are boycotts the best method to deal with such situations? Where
is the research to back that assumption? When are boycotts, indeed,
effective? And, are there not other options that should be considered?
3) Will the denialists disappear if we boycott their conferences? Is
a conference best left to denialists?
4) Does it matter or not what one says or does at such conferences?
Does the intent of participation have to be limited to trying to
“convince” the other of the factuality of the Genocide? Isn’t it
possible to take an opportunity, offered for whatever reason, and
have sufficient self-confidence to use it to one’s own advantage?
5) Are Armenians in the same situation regarding the international
recognition of the Genocide as Jews are regarding that of the
Holocaust? Can Armenians afford to act with the same cavalier fashion
regarding denialists as Jews can, as suggested by Professor Dwork?
Would we care what any scholar or politician or parliament thinks
about the usage of the term genocide if Turkey had recognized that
crime as Germany has done with its crime?
6) If by merely attending a conference is sufficient for a
scholar to have a legitimized the program and approaches of a
cosponsoring organization, then are we to assume that when Armenian
or other scholars attend conferences sponsored by institutions and
scholars-Turkish or otherwise- who do not use the term genocide they
are legitimizing the non-use of the term genocide?
7) Can we be sure that Turkish or other scholars who share our pain
but do not use the term genocide or who do not agree to reparations
are less “dangerous” than those who openly oppose the use of the term?
8) Are Turkish scholars-or, for that matter any others- legitimizing
territorial demands against Turkey by participating in events sponsored
by Armenian political parties that have placed such demands at the
forefront of their programs?
9) Should the position of a scholar or organization on the recognition
of the Genocide be the only criterion to be considered when considering
Turkish-Armenian contacts and relations?
The list of questions can continue and be expanded but I will stop
here for now and get to thereasons for my accepting the invitation
to speak at the Tbilisi conference:
1) This was a conference on “End of Empires” that allowed participants
to explore contexts of specific issues, including those of interest
to Armenians. The Genocide could be placed in its larger context,
which often makes it more understandable for those who have a certain
resistance to its acceptance.
2) There were no limitations on what and how I could discuss and no
request was made, nor could one be accepted, for prior approval of
my talk. To my knowledge that was also the case for other Armenian
scholars who were invited to participate.
3) The conference was being held with the co-sponsorship of the most
important university in Georgia, a critical neighbor of Armenia, with
the participation of many scholars and others from that country and
elsewhere who would have heard only a denialist position had Armenian
scholars not participated.
4) The conference was “legitimized,” with or without Armenians, with
the participation of not only Georgian institutions but also the
president of MESA and others whose credentials cannot be questioned
and cannot be judged solely by their position regarding the Genocide
or its recognition.
5) Genocide recognition is now primarily a political process, which
requires a presence whereverpossible, especially where denialists
appear.
6) Genocide recognition is not the only factor that affects
Armenian-Turkish contacts and relations. That observation is valid even
for the Diaspora. The proliferation of contacts and discussion groups
over the last 15 years is evidence of that. But that observation
is certainly true as far as relations between the two states of
Armenia and Turkey are concerned. One can reduce relations between
Armenian and Turkey to Genocide recognition only at the expense of
the security-in the widest yet most realistic sense of that term-
of Armenia and of its people. Armenia and Turkey face not only
security concerns-traditionally defined bilateral and regional-but
also environmental, human trafficking, and other dimensions that
cannot and should not be endangered by rigid policies that do not
help resolve these issues. Some Armenians and “pro-Armenian” others
may find this or that Turk unworthy of Armenian contact or even
dangerous to contact. Have we forgotten that once all Turks were
deemed dangerous? That many of these same scholars opposed sitting
down with any Turkish scholar who did not accept the term Genocide,
and similar charges of legitimizing the position of such Turks were
leveled at those of us who initiated such contacts?
7) Turks of all shades and convictions, particularly the ones who work
for the government or are closely associated with it, are part of the
decision making process and/or constitute an important segment of the
public opinion that sustains/opposes the government and its policies,
for different or even opposing reasons. Given the historical nature
of our most fundamental difference with that government, academics
have come to play an inordinately significant role in the formulation,
exteriorization, and management of that conflict.
Thus deciding to boycott such a conference would be closing one’s
eyes to the reality that we are involved essentially in a political
process, and not just a simple moral dilemma. Not attending would
indicate that we refuse to be involved in the political process.
8) Turkey and the Turkish world represent a complex reality. Turkey
or Turks cannot be seen as good or bad. The country represents a
spectrum, like most others. We must learn to deal with all. There
was a time when all Turks were bad. Then we started accepting a few,
then a few more. We learned to talk to Turks who do not use the term
genocide but share our pain and do not actively oppose the use of
the term but still, are not too far from those who reject it, in
political terms. What we should have learned is that seeing people
as good versus bad has not been a useful paradigm to deal with this
complex world. Despite the experience of the past, some still insist
on acting and formulating policies based on old reflexes that have
long proven to be less than relevant.
In other words, one cannot engage in these processes expecting to
achieve a desired goal by arbitrarily defining safe moral/intellectual
limits for oneself, leaving out what may disturb one’s comfortable
scholarly and quasi-political world. One can decide not to enter that
world but that does not give anyone the right to criticize others
who see the field and the issues in a different and wider context.
I do not wish to make this article longer than it need be and abuse
the good will of the editors of the Asbarez and the Armenian Weekly.
But there are two points I must add.
First, What would be the implications of the position taken by my five
colleagues, if we were to boycott activities sponsored by institutions
that advocate or defend the denial of the Genocide?
I believe it was in the 1980s that the Academic Senate of the
University of California at Los Angeles defended the teaching of
denialist history when it insisted-against arguments presented by
Profess Richard Hovannisian- on the right of Professor Stanford Shaw to
teach Ottoman history any way he wanted. UCLA-and by extension the UC
system and any self-respecting academic institution in this country-
is a much more important institution than TCA and Professor Shaw has
been a much more influential scholar in the filed than Professor Hakan
Yavuz. Should Professor Hovannisian have resigned his position because
the University he was working at had now legitimized denialism? He
did not, of course, and he went on teaching in the same system and
in the same department as Professor Shaw for many years.
I am glad he stayed, even though by the logic he and the other four
scholars offer doing so was tantamount to legitimizing denialism.
Second, a word on the workshop I suggested should be organized to
discuss these arguments and others that are best discussed outside
these pages. As indicated above, I made that offer early and had no
taker. A third party colleague has accepted the idea and may still
organize one in the fall. It will be too late for this conference
but the proper way to deal with this issue is, still, to have a
face-to-face discussion at leisure on the issues that have already been
raised, and discuss dimensions that are not appropriate for a newspaper
format. We may or may not reach a consensus; but I do hope, we will
develop a more enlightened view of things based on mutual respect.
The question is: Will the Armenian Weekly and the Asbarez, and our
five colleagues and others insist that their position is incontestable,
irrefutable, incontrovertible, that somehow they have managed to find
the ultimate truth, the ultimate value and the ultimate morality in
the politics of Genocide recognition, and that they do not need to
listen to other, opposing views?
One final question: Is an assault on colleagues who have a different
approach than theirs the issue around which five scholars concerned
with Genocide recognition should come together? Can we assume that
these five and all others are laboring ceaselessly and gathering all
their-and our-resources in preparation for the 100th anniversary of
the beginning of the Genocide? Or was this the shot intended to divert
our attention from the utter paucity of any large scale strategizing
to face 2015?
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/07/30/waltzing-around-denial-a-response-to-jirair-libaridian/
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/07/30/libaridian-scholars-and-the-politics-of-genocide-recognition/