Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Virgul: An interview with Ara Sarafian

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Virgul: An interview with Ara Sarafian

    An interview with Ara Sarafian - Turkish review VIRGUL- Issue 95 - May 2006

    http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article= 23050)
    dimanche 4 juin 2006, Stéphane/armenews

    AN INTERVIEW WITH ARA SARAFIAN

    published in the monthly book review Virgul, Issue 95, May 2006

    OSMAN KOKER : If I remember right your name was first heard in Turkey
    in the year 1995 when your research at the Ottoman Archives was
    interrupted by the officials there. In the past few years your name is
    mentioned in connection with the `Treatment of Armenians in the
    Ottoman Empire 1915-1916', known as the "Blue Book".

    At the conference in the Istanbul University on 15-17 March you made a
    presentation about the Blue Book. Why did you choose the Blue Book as
    your topic ?

    ARA SARAFIAN : I chose this subject because it is topical in Turkey,
    and because the Blue Book issue reflects the disturbing face of the
    official Turkish thesis on the Armenian Genocide. The whole case
    against the Blue Book, according to the official Turkish thesis,
    relies on deliberate misinformation about the subject. This is why I
    call many of my antagonists `denier' of the Armenian Genocide rather
    than people I disagree with.

    O.K. : How was the Blue Book prepared ?

    A.S. : The Blue Book was originally compiled as a report. We do not
    know how the decision was taken to request such a report, but
    certainly we do know that its compilers, Arnold Toynbee and James
    Bryce, acted in good faith when putting it together. We can make this
    assertions because we have Toynbee's working papers from this period
    (including his correspondence with Bryce), as well as his later
    published works where he talks about the Blue Book and the Armenian
    Genocide.

    O.K. : What are the criteria employed in deciding to include a witness
    account in the book ? Do you think these criteria are reliable ?

    A.S. : The key criteria for the inclusion of reports in the Blue Book
    was that sources had to be authentic primary records (eye-witness
    accounts). Most of these reports were from a neutral United States,
    which had its consulates in the interior of the Ottoman Empire until
    April 1917. These consuls reported what they saw around them, and they
    also forwarded other reports written by Americans and non-Americans in
    these regions, such as the letters of American, German, or Swiss
    missionaries.

    Given these source of information, Toynbee and Bryce did not doubt the
    originality of these accounts from the Ottoman Empire, and they judged
    their value as primary sources on a record by record basis.

    I think the criteria used by Toynbee and Bryce to gather and assess
    their materials were creditworthy under the circumstances. They even
    made provisions for possible errors creeping in by basing their case
    on the weight of all the evidence without relying on one or two
    documents. They also, for example, made sure that, the core narrative
    of events rested on the evidence of Americans, Germans and other
    foreigners, in case the `native evidence' (those from Armenian or
    Assyrian sources) may have overstated what they saw.

    In fact, when they did so, they realised that the strongest reports
    were provided by non-Armenians, and that the `native evidence' merely
    provided additional information.

    According to the available evidence, the report that was compiled by
    Bryce and Toynbee was accepted as a Parliamentary Blue Book in the
    summer of 1916 because of the strong case it represented. Certainly
    Toynbee had no idea that the report he compiled would become a
    Parliamentary report.

    The strength of the Blue Book today lies in the fact that we have a
    complete record of how it was put together. We also know where (most
    of) the original documentation came from, as well as how these
    documents were selected from a wider body of archival records in the
    United States. This is why we can still find the original records
    today (and can not simply speculate about their real or fictitious
    origins).

    I used these archival and published sources to carefully annotate my
    critical edition of the 1916 work.

    O.K. : Do you think we can refer to the Blue Book as a propaganda
    tool? What were the means/methods used by the British in their
    propaganda efforts at that time ?

    A.S. : The British used propaganda as part of their war effort. Some
    of this was crude, and some of it not so crude. The British government
    was careful such propaganda did not backfire. That is why they did not
    publish anything on Ottoman Turkey early in the war (for example when
    they were landing at Gallipoli), because they did not have reliable
    information. They were concerned that, if they made a poor case
    against the Ottoman Empire, it would offend the Muslim population of
    the British Empire. The first pamphlet they printed, not under an
    official title, was after October 1915-when they first began receiving
    reliable information about the destruction of Armenians. In fact, the
    basis of that booklet was a speech Bryce made in Parliament, based on
    the new evidence from the USA. Toynbee was asked to create a
    publication from Bryce's speech, which is what he did, and it was
    published under his own name.

    As more evidence of atrocities against Armenians was revealed, Toynbee
    and Bryce continued to collect such records in a more formal way in
    February 1916, for a more critical and systematic report. Once the
    decision was taken to publish the Blue Book, it was used for effective
    propaganda purposes. However, the work itself was not compromised by
    crude propaganda considerations, nor fabricated as some deniers of the
    Armenian Genocide like to suggest. The Blue Book was compiled to a
    high academic standard, and the archival records we have today support
    this point out.

    O.K. : As you know, Ottoman Empire too published a book, `Ermeni
    Komitelerinin Amal ve Harekat-i Ihtilaliyesi', for propaganda purposes
    about the Armenian issue during the WWI. What can you say on this book?

    A.S. : Regarding Ottoman wartime propaganda against Armenians, it
    cannot be compared with the Blue Book. Turkish nationalists have
    republished the Ottoman government's anti-Armenian propaganda without
    serious examination where the records came from, who compiled and
    edited them, who forwarded them to the compilers, where the original
    materials are today, how records were included or excluded from the
    Ottoman publication, etc. It would be an interesting exercise for the
    TTK (Turkish History Association) to undertake and publish such an
    annotated republication, as the Gomidas Institute has done for the
    Blue Book.

    O.K. : You are the editor of the 2000 "uncensored" edition of the Blue
    Book ? What does "uncensored" mean ?

    A.S. : I am the editor of the 2000 and the 2005 `uncensored' editions!
    The latter one came out last year with minor additions in the
    introduction.

    I decided to call my annotated republication the `uncensored edition'
    because I included information that was left out of the original
    publication. In 1916, many of the witnesses whose reports appeared in
    the Blue Book, were still in the Ottoman Empire (for example, the US
    consuls in Trabzon, Harput, Aleppo, Mersin). The British could not
    reveal the identities of these people for obvious reasons. In other
    cases, the eyewitness accounts were so specific, that the identities
    of the sources inside the Ottoman Empire could be revealed by the
    witness statements, so some place names also had to be obscured as
    well. When Toynbee censured such information he also placed it into a
    confidential key, which was not made generally available-except to
    trusted individuals.

    Toynbee also explained all of this in his introduction to the main
    volume.

    The confidential key was made public after WWI and has been in print
    for the past 50 years. So, when we reproduced the Blue Book at the
    Gomidas Institute, we also put all of this information back into the
    main work. This is why we called it the `uncensored edition,' because
    we put all of the missing information that was taken out in 1916 was
    put back into the main text.

    Deniers of the Blue Book today do not acknowledge these facts and
    argue that the Blue Book hid its sources because the report used by
    the British were fictitious ! Recently, at the Istanbul University
    Symposium, Sukru Elekdag claimed that Justin McCarthy had just
    `discovered' a copy of the key in the British National Archives at
    Kew, and that the key showed that the reports comprising the Blue Book
    were not creditworthy. Of course, Elekdag's assertions remain absurd :
    as mentioned before, the key to the Blue Book has been available for
    many decades. Furthermore, if one looked at McCarthy's work over the
    last 20 years, one can see in his bibliographies that he has been
    consulting archival collections that have included the confidential
    key (most notably the Toynbee Papers, Record Group of the State
    Department). In fact the same is also true for other deniers, such as
    Mim Kemal Ã-ke, Salahi Sonyel, Kamuran Gurun and others. The
    publication of the `uncensored edition' of the Blue Book has forced
    McCarthy to change his position, but it is not enough to save him. He
    has acknowledged the key only to claim (again wrongly) that the
    content of the Blue Book is inadequate.

    Other than collapsing the confidential key back into the main Blue
    Book, I also used the Toynbee Papers in the British National Archives
    to trace the original records that were sent to him. Having traced the
    bulk of these records to the United States National Archives, I
    checked if the reports sent to the British were selective (i.e. were
    there any reports which did not support the Armenian Genocide thesis
    ?), and if the accounts that were sent were changed by communicants in
    the USA or by Bryce and Toynbee themselves. I then annotated the blue
    book with this additional information, including full citations where
    the original records could be found, and I gave my analysis in a new
    introduction to the `uncensored' Blue Book.

    What were the results ? The Blue Book was exactly what it claimed it
    was in its original introduction. It was carefully put together with
    the authenticity of each document examined. I can also say that the
    U.S. reports appearing in the Blue Book were not selective nor
    distorted. In fact, if we added all of the missing records from the
    State Department files (i.e.including those which were not sent to the
    British in 1916), the Blue Book thesis would actually be
    strengthened. Some of the worst accounts about the Armenian Genocide
    were not made public by the Americans-but we can certainly read them
    today.

    I have also published these sources in another book called `United
    States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-17' and these
    records (and more) will soon appear on the internet on
    _www.gomidas.org_ (http://www.gomidas.org) .

    O.K. : Turkish retired ambassador and member of parliament Sukru
    Elekdag said, in the conference at the Istanbul University, that the
    Blue Book was the "last fortress of the Armenian genocide
    allegations". Is this true ? Aren't there any other publications or
    archival records on Armenian genocide.

    A.S. : Sukru Elekdag is like the captain of a sinking ship who
    continues telling his passengers that he knows what he is doing. The
    Blue Book issue is a personal debacle for him, as well as others who
    have worked for him on this issue. The choice of staking Turkey's
    reputation on the denial of the Blue Book was a political blunder
    which will only bring shame to the Turkish republic.

    I say the Turkish republic because Elekdag managed to get the whole
    TGNA behind him on this issue. I do not feel sorry for Elekdag, but I
    feel sorry for those well meaning Turks who trusted his judgement.

    Furthermore, at the Istanbul University symposium, Elekdag claimed
    that his Blue Book campaign was part of the Turkish government's peace
    initiative last year to resolve the Turkish-Armenian issue and to hand
    down a peaceful legacy to future generations of Armenians,Turks (and
    presumably Kurds). If his Blue Book campaign is a measure of that
    initiative, then we have to questions the actual peaceful intentions
    of the Turkish authorities.

    Elekdag and his supporters seem to be mocking us when addressing the
    Armenian issue. They seem to believe that they are in a position of
    power, and that they think they can get away with anything they
    want. They are part of the problem in Turkish-Armenian relations
    today, not part of the solution.

    I suggest Turkish intellectuals consider carefully the case I am
    making here. The Blue Book issue is very instructive how Turkey looks
    in the outside world-especially as the TGNA has made it into an
    international issue.

    I believe the most important sources that are available on the
    Armenian Genocide are the memoirs of Armenian survivors. Many of these
    sources are incredibly detailed and provide the perspective of
    victims. Then there are the diplomatic records of the United States,
    Germany, Italy and other countries. Of course Ottoman records have
    their own significance, though I cannot comment on them. I was only
    recently readmitted back into Ottoman archives and I hope to have the
    opportunity to return to Turkey and work with such materials as well.

    The Gomidas Institute has published the memoirs and diaries of foreign
    diplomats and missionaries, such as the diaries of Ambassador
    Morgenthau. The latter manuscript was published in its entirety,
    because it is a crucial primary source. It also supports Morgenthau's
    stance on the Armenian issue. Most people in Turkey know about
    Morgenthau because of Heath Lowry's booklet which misrepresents
    Morgenthau's reports and diaries and castigating the American
    ambassador as some sort of an Armenian puppet. Heath Lowry's
    assessment of Morgenthau is wrong and part of Elekdag's denialist
    campaign from the 1980s. Lowry and Elekdag have worked together
    closely to deny the Armenian Genocide. In fact, there was a big
    scandal about this very subject not so long ago, following a clerical
    error at the Turkish embassy, when Lowry's correspondence with
    Elekdag, where they discussed the denial of the Armenian Genocide, was
    sent to an American scholar. That scholar exposed this correspondence
    and there is plenty of information about that scandal on the internet.

    The Gomidas Institute is currently fund-raising so that it can
    continue its research and publishing work, in English, Armenian and
    hopefully Turkish. Right now we have a number of key books to
    publish, including translations in our new Turkish language series.

    However, as an independent academic institution, the Gomidas Institute
    has no government or other institutional backing. We are also not a
    lobbying organisation. We have to raise funds for each project we
    undertake and each book we publish. Sometimes we have to refuse
    funding because potential sponsors try to twist our work for partisan
    purposes. Like many other institutions, we have to remain vigilant to
    maintaining our academic integrity. There is no question where we
    stand in such matters. I hope we will continue our work and start
    cooperating with similar institutions in Turkey.

    O.K. : Have you come across reference to a specific incident mentioned
    in the Blue Book in some other records/archival documents or books ?

    A.S. : Yes. For example, the events in Harpout, including the mass
    murder of Armenian community leaders are corroborated in the diaries
    of Maria Jacobsen and Tacy Atkinson, as well as the memoirs of Henry
    Riggs. Similarly, the appalling condition of Armenian deportees in
    Osmaniye are corroborated by many sources, including the diaries of an
    Armenian schoolboy from Corum, Vahram Dadrian. There are many such
    examples.

    O.K. : What do you think is the significance of the Istanbul
    University symposium on the future of Turkish Armenian relations ? And
    what are your expectations to follow ?

    A.S. : By holding this conference, the participants at the Istanbul
    University symposium demonstrated a fundamental point : the treatment
    of Armenians in 1915, including the Armenian Genocide thesis, is a
    legitimate topic of discussion in Turkey today. This is a radical
    departure from the past, when the subject was both a taboo and
    proscribed by law. This does not mean that the official Turkish
    thesis, which does not recognize the Armenian Genocide, has
    changed. But it does mean that the subject is open to scrutiny and
    discussion.

    I expect that there will be many participants in future discussions,
    where Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and other historians will agree and
    disagree on concrete historical issues regarding their common
    history. I hope it will be a fruitful endeavour.

    Even now, many ethnic Turks do not agree with the official Turkish
    thesis, just as many Armenian historians do not agree with the
    established Armenian one. The important thing is that the Armenian
    Genocide (and the genocide of Assyrians) can now be addressed within
    the boundaries of sensible academic debates.

    O.K. : It was a big surprise for us that Yusuf Halacoglu, head of the
    TTK (Turkish History Association), offered you to make researches
    together and you accepted it. Doesn't the Gomidas Institute and the
    TTK stand in opposition to each other on the events of 1915 ?

    A.S. : Despite all our differences in the past, I accepted
    Dr. Halacoglu's offer in good faith. I will try to work with him and
    the TTK as well as I can. The TTK and the Gomidas Institute stands in
    opposition to each other on the events of 1915. But I hope we can show
    by our example that it is still possible to agree and disagree with
    each other in a scholarly manner, in the interest of truth, as well as
    peace. Besides, the TTK is not the only body that discusses the
    Armenian issue in Turkey. There are many other official and unofficial
    organisations, as well as private individuals, who already take part
    in such work and discussions. The Gomidas Institute is only one party
    in this debate.

    O.K. : Don't you see any pitfalls and difficulties ahead ?

    A.S. : Yes, there is always the possibility of failure for all sorts
    of reasons. But that is not a reason not to try. Peace is a great
    prize we can all share together.

    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X