Tweet
ARMENIAN REPORTER
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
Web: http://www.armenianreporteronline.com
Email: [email protected]
November 25, 2006
1. President Kocharian: Our people are our greatest resource
2. NKR president suggests measures to restrain Azerbaijan; discusses
Armenian-American advocacy and Karabakh's political development
3. Fund for Armenian Relief raises $1.1 million through tribute to
Kevork Hovnanian; Foreign Minister Oskanian keynote speaker at gala
event in NY Public Library
4. Toward an ethically grounded historiography of the Armenian
Genocide (book review)
5. Editorial: A visible boost for the rule of law
********************************************* ******************************
1. President Kocharian: Our people are our greatest resource
Yerevan--In a wide-ranging speech at the Bertelsmann Foundation in
Berlin on November 16, 2006, President Robert Kocharian set forth a
vision of constant political, economic, and social transformation in
Armenia. He also reiterated his position that Karabakh would never
cede its independence.
The Bertelsmann Foundation is a leading European think tank and
"driver of social change."
"Armenia is not rich in natural resources," the president
acknowledged. But it is well known for the "entrepreneurial and
hard-working nature" of its people. Today, 85 percent of Armenia's
gross domestic product is produced in the private sector, the
president noted, with over 40 percent in small and medium businesses.
"In the difficult period of transition, the need to invest in people
was neglected, and currently we are trying to bridge that gap," the
president said. These efforts are possible because Armenia's economic
situation is improving: annual GDP growth has averaged 12.2 percent,
while foreign investment last year added up to 500 million U.S.
dollars.
"Such progress allows our government to address social problems
challenging our society," Mr. Kocharian stated. He cited the
government's poverty reduction program and the program to invest in
rural communities. He spoke also of educational reforms.
The goal, the president said, is to build a knowledge economy that
takes advantage of the country's high literacy rate. Information
technology already accounts for 2 percent of GDP, Mr. Kocharian said.
The president acknowledged widespread corruption in the government and
spoke of "a pressing need" to reform tax and customs bodies.
Democracy from Below
Turning to politics and society, the president said he is a strong
believer in "democracy from below. It is not enough to create
democratic institutions," he said. "Without strongly motivated
stakeholders, they would be rapidly corrupted and altered. In our view
those capable stakeholders of democracy are small and medium
businesses on one hand, and civil society on the other."
Regarding civil society, however, the president had harsh words for
the nonprofit sector. "Nongovernmental organizations, being a
relatively new phenomenon, often continue to be grant-oriented instead
of being goal-oriented." Nonetheless, he said, "all state institutions
in Armenia have started to work closely with civil society groups."
The president reiterated Armenia's basic foreign policy principle of
complimentarity, under which Armenia seeks benefits in the overlapping
interests of other countries rather than exploiting disagreements.
"This has allowed us to combine splendid relations with Russia, the
European Union, the United States, and Iran."
"Much to our regret," the president continued, Armenia enjoys no
relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. "Being a member of NATO and
aspiring to European Union membership, Turkey should have adopted a
more positive policy in the region. More than once we have proposed to
establish diplomatic relations, and this offer still stands. We
believe that neighboring countries should build their relations
without preconditions, and moreover, without tying relations to the
demands of a third state."
Having repeated Armenia's overtures to Turkey, the president took a
hard line on Karabakh: "We do not recall any case of a nation
willingly ceding the independence it has been enjoying for over 15
years. No one intends to do so in case of Karabakh."
"Transition is a process, not an event," Mr. Kocharian concluded. "It
does have a beginning but never an end. In my view the people's
vitality is rooted in its capacity to comprehend the need for change
and its readiness to transform itself."
--V.L.
Photo caption: President Kocharian delivers a major speech at the
Bertelsmann Foundation in Berlin. In response to a question, the
president said that the independence of Karabakh is less like that of
Kosovo and more like the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whereas Kosovo
became independent through the active participation of NATO and the
EU, Karabakh achieved independence on its own. "The fall of the Berlin
Wall became possible after the collapse of the USSR"--as did the
removal of the artificial boundary between Armenia and Karabakh.
*************************************** ************************************
2. NKR president suggests measures to restrain Azerbaijan; discusses
Armenian-American advocacy and Karabakh's political development
Washington, D.C.--President Arkady Ghoukasian of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic (NKR) is in the midst of his latest visit to the United
States, which includes working meetings in New York, Boston, Detroit,
and several California cities. The visit's main objective is to take
part in the Hayastan Pan-Armenian Fund's annual fundraising telethon
on Thanksgiving Day, which benefits NKR's development. Last Monday,
November 20, President Ghoukasian kindly agreed to grant a phone
interview to Emil Sanamyan, Washington editor of the "Armenian
Reporter" to discuss this week's telethon and other issues of the day.
"Armenian Reporter": How is the visit going so far? What are your
expectations from this year's telethon?
President Ghoukasian: The meetings have been very positive. We are
doing a lot work to make this year's telethon another success. And I
believe our compatriots will be even more active this year than they
have been in the past.
"Armenian Reporter": Armenia Fund is continuing its program to develop
NKR's Mardakert district, and there is another program in the works to
address needs in the Hadrut district. Why has the priority been given
to development of these districts?
President Ghoukasian: Development of these two districts is in the way
a continuation of the construction of the North-South highway [the
Hayastan Fund's biggest project so far] that connects Stepanakert with
Mardakert and Hadrut, respectively in the north and south of NKR.
At the same time, the two districts are the most war-affected parts of
NKR. In 1992-93, Azerbaijani forces almost completely overran and
plundered the Mardakert district. Much of the Hadrut district
experienced the same fate, when deportation of its Armenian population
began in 1991. Another factor is that both these districts are located
at some distance from the center of economic activity in
NKR--Stepanakert. This is why we are trying to provide priority
assistance to the development of these two districts. Using this
opportunity I would like to urge all our compatriots and friends of
the Armenian people to take part in the telethon, including by
visiting the website of the Hayastan Fund at www.ArmeniaFund.org.
Armenian-American Advocacy and Karabakh
"Armenian Reporter": What can you say about the U.S. policy toward the
Karabakh conflict? Have there been any recent changes in this policy?
President Ghoukasian: In terms of the Karabakh conflict and the
associated peace process, there is a joint approach of the three
countries that cochair the OSCE Minsk Group [France, Russia, and the
United States]. Of course, Americans have been the most active in
recent years. I see a sincere desire [on the part of U.S.] to resolve
the conflict. But of course a resolution depends on not just the
mediators, but the parties themselves. At this time, I do not see any
effort on the part of the Azerbaijani rulers to resolve the conflict.
"Armenian Reporter": What is you assessment of the Armenian-American
lobby's work with regard to Karabakh? What ideas and wishes have you
expressed in terms of U.S. assistance to Karabakh and the security
situation?
President Ghoukasian: I hope that there will be greater
Armenian-American advocacy following the congressional elections
earlier this month. I think when it comes to Karabakh, there are clear
opportunities for the Armenian lobby. In my view, more work could be
done to expand the type of assistance currently provided to the people
of Karabakh, from solely humanitarian to developmental assistance as
well. And certainly it is my conviction that the U.S. Administration
and Congress cannot ignore the aggressive behavior of the Azerbaijani
rulers. It seems that the Armenian lobby could do more to draw the
attention of U.S. leadership to the blackmail, the threats, and the
actions of Azerbaijan--all of which are completely unacceptable by any
standard of decency or responsible international conduct. I believe
that all the conditions are now met for more active Armenian advocacy,
and I hope that we will all see significant results of these efforts
relatively soon.
"Armenian Reporter": While in Karabakh last month, I noticed that
there is great confidence in NKR's security and in the Karabakh army's
fighting abilities. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan's militarist campaign
continues. In your talk at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council last
Thursday [Nov. 16, 2006] you mentioned the possibility of sanctions
against Azerbaijan. Do you think the Armenian lobby in the U.S. could
play a role in thwarting Azerbaijan's campaign?
President Ghoukasian: One could envision a series of steps, including
the ones I mentioned in my talk. Such steps could include an embargo
on weapons' supplies to Azerbaijan, and certain economic sanctions
against Azerbaijan, which today prefers the language of force and
blackmail. In this case, the United States could play a role in
influencing the Karabakh conflict. But the first of these steps would
be an [official] assessment of specific countries that are capable of
affecting the existing balance of forces in Azerbaijan's policies.
As to our confidence in our ability to protect our borders, we indeed
have that confidence. We are not afraid of war. But it is our
conviction that war would mean catastrophic losses for all sides
involved and we therefore could never prefer a military approach. But
should Azerbaijan ever resume the fighting, we would naturally be able
to strike back, and we have made that obvious. I believe that when it
comes to our region, prevention of a new war should be the number one
priority for the international community, and particularly for the
United States.
Constitutional Referendum and Presidential Elections in NKR
"Armenian Reporter": Why did the NKR leadership decide to accelerate
the preparation of the draft of the new constitution this year?
President Ghoukasian: This issue has long been on our domestic policy
agenda. Adoption of a constitution was part of the presidential
campaign during the 1997 elections and again in 2002. Perhaps, it
would be more appropriate to ask: Why wasn't a constitution adopted
five or six years ago [before the end of Mr. Ghoukasian's first term
in office]?
This in part was connected to the peace process, and the hope of
reaching a peace agreement with Azerbaijan at that time. We in turn
wished neither to hamper this process in any way, nor to give
Azerbaijan any excuse to step back from what at the time seemed like a
constructive approach. While both then and now we strongly believe
that our constitution has nothing to do with Azerbaijan, there has
been a certain restraint on our part in the past. At the same time,
since the document under discussion would be adopted not for a year or
two, but for the long term, we thought that any rush in this process
would be inappropriate. So we decided to invest enough time in this to
be able to review the political development of NKR to date, discuss
the preferred models for our state institutions, and develop the final
constitutional draft. Finally, since development of a constitution was
my presidential pledge, and I truly believe this will be a
revolutionary step in Karabakh's political development, it is only
appropriate for me to try to fulfill this promise before the end of my
presidency. So, there is certainly nothing artificial in this process
of adopting a constitution.
"Armenian Reporter": Has there been any reaction to this process,
particularly from the cochair countries?
President Ghoukasian: Not so far. The process of adoption of a
constitution continues, and the referendum [planned for Dec. 10, 2006]
has yet to take place. I do not believe that there could be a negative
reaction and, certainly, we expect an objective assessment and
positive reaction from the international community, particularly from
the cochair countries, since this is another reflection of a
democratic progress taking place in Karabakh. At the same, we have
little interest in the reactions of countries such as Azerbaijan or
Turkey.
"Armenian Reporter": What would be the role of an NKR constitution
from the point of view of the integration of NKR and Armenia? How
similar is the current NKR draft to Armenia's constitution and what
are the differences?
President Ghoukasian: Considering the ongoing economic integration
with Armenia, we naturally would like our constitution to be not too
different from Armenia's. At the same time, the current constitutional
proposal takes into account NKR's specifics, such as the continued
state of martial law and its limited territory. So we could not simply
adopt Armenia's constitution in NKR. I believe our future constitution
will help define our relations with Armenia more clearly, and will
create a better-defined framework for our relations.
"Armenian Reporter": Last month, you said publicly that you would not
seek another term in office during NKR's presidential elections next
year. Was this a decision that came after some reflection and
analysis?
President Ghoukasian: I have never considered running for a third term
in office, because first of all this is not allowed under our existing
law. Secondly, it is of great importance to me that Nagorno-Karabakh
should continue to serve as a democratic example to other
countries--including countries recognized by the international
community. Most likely, speculations about a third term in office
began because some political and societal forces did indeed want me to
remain president. But I would repeat that I myself have never had such
ideas, and I consider that [for me to seek a third term] would not be
correct.
"Armenian Reporter": Have you made any plans for after the end of your
term next year?
President Ghoukasian: This would be something to discuss in another
interview. I think it is too early to say anything. Of course I have a
few ideas, but I do not think it would make sense to make them public
right now.
"Armenian Reporter": Do you have any preference regarding what kind of
candidate you would like to see succeed you in 2007 as president of
Nagorno-Karabakh?
President Ghoukasian: It is not all that important whom I would prefer
to see [as the next president]; it is up to the people of Karabakh to
decide this. Let's keep that in mind.
******************************************* ********************************
3. Fund for Armenian Relief raises $1.1 million through tribute to
Kevork Hovnanian; Foreign Minister Oskanian keynote speaker at gala
event in NY Public Library
New York--In a sparkling event at the New York Public Library on
Saturday, November 18, the Fund for Armenian Relief honored
businessperson and philanthropist Kevork Hovnanian for his 16 years as
founding chairman of one of the Armenian diaspora's leading relief and
development organizations. In anticipation of the gala tribute, FAR
raised $1.1 million for its numerous programs and projects in Armenia,
where it has been actively involved since the 1988 earthquake.
Armenia's foreign minister Vartan Oskanian made a special one-day trip
to the U.S. to attend the gala, where he was keynote speaker. In
stirring and animated remarks, Oskanian conveyed the regards of
Armenian president Kocharian to Mr. Hovnanian, and extolled the
honoree as a model of the way the diaspora should invest in the
Republic of Armenia, its institutions, and its citizens.
The foreign minister was one of many dignitaries attending the
function, including two former U.S. ambassadors to Armenia, Harry
Gilmore (who also delivered formal remarks) and John Evans; Armenia's
ambassador in Washington Tatoul Markarian, and its U.N. ambassador
Armen Martirossian; Carnegie Corporation of New York president Vartan
Gregorian; former New Jersey governor Brendan Byrne; the leaders of
many Armenian-American organizations, and FAR board members. Formal
remarks were also presented by Diocesan primate and FAR president
Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, and Ara Hovnanian, CEO of Hovnanian
Enterprises and son of the honoree. Randolph Sapah Gulian, who last
year succeeded Kevork Hovnanian as chairperson of FAR, was the
evening's master of ceremonies.
Of his tenure as the visionary leader of FAR--which has delivered more
than $265 million dollars in humanitarian relief and development
projects to Armenia since its inception in 1989--Mr. Hovnanian told
the audience of 400 well-wishers--Anyone who had been in Armenia four
days after the [1988] earthquake, as I was, would have done the same
thing I did?
The Fund for Armenian Relief is the humanitarian relief and
development arm of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of
America. Details and photos from the Kevork Hovnanian tribute will
appear in our next issue.
****************************************** *********************************
4. Toward an ethically grounded historiography of the Armenian
Genocide (book review)
A SHAMEFUL ACT
The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility
by Taner Akcam
New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006, 483 pp., $30 (hardcover)
by Lou Ann Matossian
On July 25, 2006, Turkish Parliament speaker Bulent Arinc protested to
his Dutch counterpart, "All documents we possess prove that there has
not been a genocide" (Anatolia News Agency). With his new history of
the Armenian Genocide, reconstructed for the first time through
extensive use of Ottoman archival materials, Taner Akcam, the first
Turkish intellectual to acknowledge the Genocide as such, argues quite
otherwise. In so doing, he calls upon the people of Turkey "to
consider the suffering inflicted in their name" (page 2).
Dedicated to the memory of a Muslim who saved Armenians, "A Shameful
Act" is a substantially revised and updated version of Akcam's 1999
book, "Insan Haklari ve Ermeni Sorunu" (Human rights and the Armenian
Question). The English title reflects the ethical foundations of this
scholarly work. The phrase "a shameful act" quotes Mustafa Kemal
(Ataturk), founder of the Turkish Republic, while "Turkish
responsibility" evokes not only accountability but obligation.
Moreover, the rhetorical shift from "Ermeni sorunu" to "Turkish
responsibility" inverts the so-called "Armenian Question" into an
interrogation of the actors who created it. Defining and scapegoating
a minority group as a "problem" is, after all, part of its
subordination.
For the most part, Armenians appear in the scholarly literature as a
collective object of the genocidal process, rather than as the
individual subjects of their own narratives of survival. Reading "A
Shameful Act," one longs to know more, for instance, about the
"several young girls" who spotted their parents' murderers at large in
Istanbul after the war; based on the daughters' testimony, the
perpetrators were arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison (290).
Nevertheless, Akcam's occasionally arid exposition is undergirded with
a strong moral sensibility.
The author's core belief is that all human societies, under the right
conditions, are inherently capable of mass violence. Accordingly, "to
prevent the recurrence of such an event, people must first consider
their own responsibility, discuss it, debate it, and recognize it. In
the absence of such honest consideration, there remains the high
probability of such acts being repeated.... There are no exceptions"
(2). The question of Turkish responsibility has wide implications
indeed.
Meticulously crafted, "A Shameful Act" is at heart a case study of
crime and injustice, justification and that which cannot be justified.
Although Akcam does not hesitate to use the G word throughout the
book, "the important thing," he says, "is not the term, but rather the
moral position that recognizes the crime and condemns it. The failure
of the official Turkish state approach is its insistence that this
immense crime was a justifiable act of state necessity" (9). Inasmuch
as genocide denotes a crime under international law, one could argue
that proper terminology is essential for recognition--and this book
would not disagree. However, the author is wrestling with a deeper
problem: how to establish the ethical foundations of international
law, "the prime matrix of all human rights, including the rights of
potential or actual genocide victims," in the words of Akcam's mentor,
Vahakn N. Dadrian. (Vahakn N. Dadrian, "Genocide as a Problem of
National and International Law: The World War I Armenian Case and Its
Contemporary Legal Ramifications," "Yale Journal of International
Law," vol. 14, no. 2 (Summer 1989), p. 333.)
As for the morality of denial, often described as the final stage of
genocide, "the attempt to justify and rationalize the death of a whole
nation," says the author, "must itself be considered a crime against
humanity" (203). Because "those who resort to mass murder on a
collective scale always put forward the justification that they acted
on behalf of the nation," (372) a society that rationalizes genocide
can justify any crime in terms of the national interest.
This lesson in ends and means is not, of course, limited to Turks and
Armenians, for Akcam shows how the postwar Allies redefined their
national interests to rationalize complicity in genocide denial, a
pattern that was to continue. As a British diplomat explained in 1922,
"the Turks have understood the situation well and will take things as
far as they possibly can. There is no consensus on this issue among
the Allies, some of whom even want to supply the Turks with money and
weapons.... Allies will not sever their relations with Turkey for the
sake of the Armenian question" (365). Akcam shows that the
contradiction between national interests and sovereignty, on one hand,
and the moral necessity of humanitarian intervention, on the other,
thwarted postwar attempts to bring the perpetrators of genocide to
justice; as seen in Darfur, the problem persists to this day.
* * *
Using Ottoman, German, Austrian, and American archival materials, "A
Shameful Act" covers the late nineteenth century through the postwar
trials and the emergence of the Turkish republic. All these sources,
taken together, point to the same conclusion: "under the terms of the
U.N. definition, and in light of all the documentary evidence, we
cannot but call the acts against the Armenians genocide" (9). Although
"proving" the Genocide is not the author's aim, a major contribution
of this study is to demonstrate that Ottoman and Western sources tell
substantially the same story--from complementary, not contradictory,
perspectives.
The steps leading to the decision for genocide, which Akcam dates to
late March 1915, are clearly explained. The timing is significant
because it predates the Armenian resistance at Van, which took place
in April but is cited in denialist literature as a rationale for the
Armenian deportations. However, the Van resistance did coincide with a
tactical change from strategic to genocidal deportations, as
communicated to Fourth Army commander Cemal Pasha in a telegram of
April 24, 1915: the very moment that Armenian community leaders were
being rounded up in Constantinople; the date commemorated ever since
as the beginning of the end of Western Armenia.
The Armenian Genocide was organized through parallel chains of
command, one through Union and Progress Party channels and the other
through the ranks of Ottoman bureaucracy. The strongest evidence of
genocidal intent--the crucial element in the United Nations
definition--comes from the overall coordinator of the deportations and
massacres, Interior Minister Mehmet Talaat, who declared to German
consul general Mordtmann: "What we are talking about ... is the
elimination of the Armenians" (156). According to Abdulahad Nuri, an
organizer of the Genocide in Aleppo, Talaat also stated: "The
intention of the deportations is annihilation." (168).
Circumstantially as well, the complete lack of preparations for the
deportees' survival, and the denial of any help offered to them, were
sufficient to demonstrate that the government's aim was intentional
extermination.
What did the Union and Progress Party hope to accomplish through
genocide? Ottoman sources show that the deportations and massacres
were part of a well-formulated and longstanding demographic policy to
Turkify the whole region and prevent the emergence of an independent
Armenia. During the spring of 1915, however, Turkification was not the
immediate concern. In case of a military defeat--which appeared to be
imminent-- the Unionist leaders had prepared a detailed plan for a war
of resistance throughout the country. The officers entrusted to
implement the resistance plan were well-known members of the
party-controlled Special Organization, which carried out the Armenian
Genocide. Although a clear connection between the resistance and the
Genocide has not been documented, "the decisions to enact the two
events were made during the same period and their simultaneous start
is significant." Unionist leaders likely felt that "a war of
resistance in Anatolia would be easier with the elimination of the
Armenian population, or at least a reduction of its numbers" (128).
All in all, "the deportations were hardly a matter of relocation,"
explains Akcam. "The issue was Armenian population density" (178).
The demographic principle was to limit Armenians to no more than 10
percent of the population in any given place. Armenians were
eliminated not just from their ancestral lands in the eastern
provinces, but throughout the length and breadth of Asia Minor. So
many were deported to Der Zor that the Interior Ministry had to alert
the governors of Adana, Erzurum, Bitlis, and Aleppo that the
concentration of Armenians in that region exceeded 10 percent. "This
explains the 1916 massacres in those areas and why Der Zor was the
center" (178), says Akcam. The 10-percent policy was applied to other
ethnic minorities, including Albanians, Arabs, Bosnians, and Kurds;
Assyrians and Greeks were expelled as well. Religion made a
difference: the Muslim minorities were dispersed among the Turkish
majority and expected to assimilate, while the region's two million
Christians--a third of the overall population of Asia Minor--were
killed or deported. The Armenians were particularly targeted for
annihilation, Akcam states. One hopes that further discussion of the
Young Turks' demographic policies will be forthcoming.
In March 1919, the Istanbul government officially acknowledged the
figure of 800,000 Armenian victims--a figure later quoted by Kemal
Ataturk and endorsed by eminent historian Yusuf H. Bayur. Akcam seems
most comfortable with this figure, which he cites more than once,
while noting that the estimates of those killed reach as high as 1.5
million. As for the prewar Armenian population and the proportion of
survivors, Akcam observes that the sources conflict and all are based
on political agendas. For practical reasons as well, the number of
Armenian women and children who were given to Turkish or Kurdish
families or kidnapped "is impossible to estimate" (183), despite
efforts to recover these survivors after the armistice.
Analyzing Turkey's transition from empire to republic, "A Shameful
Act" focuses on the postwar Ottoman military tribunal in Istanbul and
the British exchange of suspected war criminals held at Malta. A major
obstacle to building a case against the detainees was that the
evidence in British hands, although damning at the group level, was
insufficiently detailed to convict individual perpetrators. Although
the Ottoman military courts had collected abundant evidence against
individuals, the British, who had occupied Istanbul since March 1920,
failed to press for the surrender of those documents--a lapse that
Akcam finds "totally incomprehensible" (359).
While the Istanbul trials would come to exemplify the inability of a
perpetrator group to punish itself, their legacy was significant for
international law and human rights. It was in Istanbul, for the first
time, that individual perpetrators, regardless of rank and authority,
could be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Indeed, the very
concept of "crimes against humanity," which informed the tribunals on
genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, can be traced through
the Nuremberg trials after World War II and the Istanbul trials after
World War I, all the way back to the Allies' declaration of May 24,
1915, in response to the massacres of Armenians. The documentary
evidence introduced at Istanbul now serves to counter genocide denial;
in a sense, the trials are still going on.
"A Shameful Act" also covers the rival Ankara government's campaign to
wipe out the Republic of Armenia "politically and physically," as well
as reciprocal massacres in the Caucasus. Akcam indicates that the
newly independent Armenian government tried unsuccessfully to halt
revenge-seeking Armenian gangs while attempting to establish itself as
a nation-state. He strongly criticizes Turkish historiography for
citing anti-Muslim violence in an attempt to relativize, justify, or
even disprove the prior extermination of Armenians in 1915. The bottom
line: "Previous massacres are never a justification for subsequent
massacres. Or, in the Turkish case, subsequent massacres can never
justify earlier genocide" (329-30).
* * *
Richard G. Hovannisian, among others, has pointed out that over the
last quarter-century, denial of the Armenian Genocide has become
increasingly sophisticated and professional. (Richard G. Hovannisian,
"Introduction," "Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian
Genocide" (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), p. 16.) Akcam
sheds light on the origins of this nine-decade campaign, long before
the involvement of sympathetic or professionally hired Westerners.
None other than Talaat, who coordinated the deportations and
massacres, "laid the groundwork for the 'official Turkish version' "
at the Union and Progress Party's final congress in November 1918
(184). The first public declaration of "what would become the official
long-standing Turkish position" on the Genocide was made at the
Lausanne Conference by Turkey's lead negotiator and future president,
Ismet Inonu, who asserted that the traitorous Armenians got what was
coming to them (366).
Kemal (Ataturk), who generally tried to distance himself from the
whole issue, blamed the Armenians for abusing their special
"privileges"; he also suggested (prophetically, as it turned out) that
"the situation was not even half the scale as things that were done
without apology in the states of Europe" (347). At Kemal's direction,
"Ankara went so far as to organize a propaganda campaign that
mentioned Muslim massacres whenever the Armenian case was raised,
especially in Europe. A campaign abroad regarding the massacres
perpetrated against the Armenians by the Turks was countered with a
plan 'that ... would ... eliminate the effect through a
counter-campaign'" (335).
And so it continues. The current campaign, inaugurated in 2002 by the
Turkish government's Committee for the Fight Against Baseless Claims
of Genocide, mandates denial in Turkish classrooms while seeking to
insert it (as the requisite "alternative viewpoint") in Western
education, legislation, and media. Meanwhile, Taner Akcam and a
growing network of colleagues are laying the foundations for a fully
integrated history of the Armenian Genocide, in keeping with
international scholarly standards. As their groundbreaking 2005
conference at Istanbul's Bilgi University demonstrated, it is no
longer possible to speak of a single "Turkish point of view."
Nor, it turns out, can one even speak of a single "Ataturk point of
view." But as Akcam shows, Kemal's April 24, 1920, condemnation of the
Armenian Genocide as "shameful acts belonging to the past" (348), not
to mention his demand for "a thorough explanation and apology" (347),
find no echo in the history and foreign policy of the republic he
largely created.
When the architects of mass murder are remembered as patriots and
heroes, and national interests are used to justify the repression of a
crime against humanity, the vortex of genocide completes another turn.
"A Shameful Act" breaks that cycle. Countering a resurgent
ultranationalist movement that prosecutes freethinkers and glorifies
the perpetrators, Akcam challenges his fellow citizens to redefine
their own national interests to confront the reality of the Armenian
Genocide. And why should they take such a risk? Because "only full
integration of Turkey's past can set the country on the path to
democracy" (13).
That path, at the present time, leads toward Europe. With the world's
eyes on the prosecution of writers such as Elif Shafak, Ragip
Zarakolu, Hrant Dink, and Orhan Pamuk under Turkey's controversial
Article 301, the country's embattled progress will be measured, in
part, by its response to Taner Akcam's work. "A Shameful Act" opens
the way to a comprehensive, intellectually rigorous, and ethically
grounded historiography of the Armenian Genocide.
* * *
Lou Ann Matossian, Ph.D., is program director of the Cafesjian Family
Foundation in Minneapolis.
************************************ ***************************************
5. Editorial: A visible boost for the rule of law
Gendarmes in jungle camouflage have been patrolling the streets of
downtown Yerevan since early November. Such a scene would normally
alarm us. But today we welcome it, as the authorities are fighting a
formidable foe: automobile-traffic gridlock.
Thousands of additional cars pour onto the streets of Yerevan each
year--and traffic gets worse and worse. Beyond sheer volume, however,
traffic is exacerbated by an epidemic of lawless driving. The typical
Yerevan driver spends the bulk of an ever-longer ride talking about
other drivers' lack of respect for traffic laws, while breaking one or
two of them himself for good measure.
Among the worst offenders are minibus drivers. These men have the
thankless task of driving back and forth on a set route several times
a day, charging passengers 100 drams (about a quarter) a ride. They
are supposed to stop only at designated bus stops; and they are
supposed to take no more passengers than can be seated in the minibus.
In fact, however, they fill the cars so densely that a prospective
rider has to consider not only the risks associated with a crash, but
also the likelihood of asphyxiation. And they stop everywhere. Indeed,
their favorite place to stop is on crosswalks.
One reason for the attraction to crosswalks is that the designated bus
stops are a favorite place for taxis to park.
This summer, the city of Yerevan installed elegant signposts and
shelters with benches and maps at every bus stop. Now, at last, the
city has launched a campaign to keep the cars out of the bus stops,
and to get the buses to stop only in designated stops.
The traffic police are participating in this campaign, but the most
visible face of the campaign is the gendarme at the bus stop.
Lawlessness in the streets is a source of frustration and a visible
repudiation of civility and, indeed, civilization. Kudos to Mayor
Yervand Zakharyan and his partners in law enforcement for making this
visible effort to enforce the rule of law.
The mayor's spokesperson, Anahit Yesayan, assures us that the campaign
will continue indefinitely. "It's about people's mentality," she said,
"and that takes time to change." Meanwhile, the city has ordered
larger buses to replace the minibuses and to reduce the number of such
vehicles on the road.
The next rule to enforce, may we suggest, is the one that gives
pedestrians the right of way on crosswalks. It's on the books.
****************************************** *********************************
Direct your inquiries to [email protected]
(c) 2006 CS Media Enterprises LLC. All Rights Reserved
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
Web: http://www.armenianreporteronline.com
Email: [email protected]
November 25, 2006
1. President Kocharian: Our people are our greatest resource
2. NKR president suggests measures to restrain Azerbaijan; discusses
Armenian-American advocacy and Karabakh's political development
3. Fund for Armenian Relief raises $1.1 million through tribute to
Kevork Hovnanian; Foreign Minister Oskanian keynote speaker at gala
event in NY Public Library
4. Toward an ethically grounded historiography of the Armenian
Genocide (book review)
5. Editorial: A visible boost for the rule of law
********************************************* ******************************
1. President Kocharian: Our people are our greatest resource
Yerevan--In a wide-ranging speech at the Bertelsmann Foundation in
Berlin on November 16, 2006, President Robert Kocharian set forth a
vision of constant political, economic, and social transformation in
Armenia. He also reiterated his position that Karabakh would never
cede its independence.
The Bertelsmann Foundation is a leading European think tank and
"driver of social change."
"Armenia is not rich in natural resources," the president
acknowledged. But it is well known for the "entrepreneurial and
hard-working nature" of its people. Today, 85 percent of Armenia's
gross domestic product is produced in the private sector, the
president noted, with over 40 percent in small and medium businesses.
"In the difficult period of transition, the need to invest in people
was neglected, and currently we are trying to bridge that gap," the
president said. These efforts are possible because Armenia's economic
situation is improving: annual GDP growth has averaged 12.2 percent,
while foreign investment last year added up to 500 million U.S.
dollars.
"Such progress allows our government to address social problems
challenging our society," Mr. Kocharian stated. He cited the
government's poverty reduction program and the program to invest in
rural communities. He spoke also of educational reforms.
The goal, the president said, is to build a knowledge economy that
takes advantage of the country's high literacy rate. Information
technology already accounts for 2 percent of GDP, Mr. Kocharian said.
The president acknowledged widespread corruption in the government and
spoke of "a pressing need" to reform tax and customs bodies.
Democracy from Below
Turning to politics and society, the president said he is a strong
believer in "democracy from below. It is not enough to create
democratic institutions," he said. "Without strongly motivated
stakeholders, they would be rapidly corrupted and altered. In our view
those capable stakeholders of democracy are small and medium
businesses on one hand, and civil society on the other."
Regarding civil society, however, the president had harsh words for
the nonprofit sector. "Nongovernmental organizations, being a
relatively new phenomenon, often continue to be grant-oriented instead
of being goal-oriented." Nonetheless, he said, "all state institutions
in Armenia have started to work closely with civil society groups."
The president reiterated Armenia's basic foreign policy principle of
complimentarity, under which Armenia seeks benefits in the overlapping
interests of other countries rather than exploiting disagreements.
"This has allowed us to combine splendid relations with Russia, the
European Union, the United States, and Iran."
"Much to our regret," the president continued, Armenia enjoys no
relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. "Being a member of NATO and
aspiring to European Union membership, Turkey should have adopted a
more positive policy in the region. More than once we have proposed to
establish diplomatic relations, and this offer still stands. We
believe that neighboring countries should build their relations
without preconditions, and moreover, without tying relations to the
demands of a third state."
Having repeated Armenia's overtures to Turkey, the president took a
hard line on Karabakh: "We do not recall any case of a nation
willingly ceding the independence it has been enjoying for over 15
years. No one intends to do so in case of Karabakh."
"Transition is a process, not an event," Mr. Kocharian concluded. "It
does have a beginning but never an end. In my view the people's
vitality is rooted in its capacity to comprehend the need for change
and its readiness to transform itself."
--V.L.
Photo caption: President Kocharian delivers a major speech at the
Bertelsmann Foundation in Berlin. In response to a question, the
president said that the independence of Karabakh is less like that of
Kosovo and more like the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whereas Kosovo
became independent through the active participation of NATO and the
EU, Karabakh achieved independence on its own. "The fall of the Berlin
Wall became possible after the collapse of the USSR"--as did the
removal of the artificial boundary between Armenia and Karabakh.
*************************************** ************************************
2. NKR president suggests measures to restrain Azerbaijan; discusses
Armenian-American advocacy and Karabakh's political development
Washington, D.C.--President Arkady Ghoukasian of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic (NKR) is in the midst of his latest visit to the United
States, which includes working meetings in New York, Boston, Detroit,
and several California cities. The visit's main objective is to take
part in the Hayastan Pan-Armenian Fund's annual fundraising telethon
on Thanksgiving Day, which benefits NKR's development. Last Monday,
November 20, President Ghoukasian kindly agreed to grant a phone
interview to Emil Sanamyan, Washington editor of the "Armenian
Reporter" to discuss this week's telethon and other issues of the day.
"Armenian Reporter": How is the visit going so far? What are your
expectations from this year's telethon?
President Ghoukasian: The meetings have been very positive. We are
doing a lot work to make this year's telethon another success. And I
believe our compatriots will be even more active this year than they
have been in the past.
"Armenian Reporter": Armenia Fund is continuing its program to develop
NKR's Mardakert district, and there is another program in the works to
address needs in the Hadrut district. Why has the priority been given
to development of these districts?
President Ghoukasian: Development of these two districts is in the way
a continuation of the construction of the North-South highway [the
Hayastan Fund's biggest project so far] that connects Stepanakert with
Mardakert and Hadrut, respectively in the north and south of NKR.
At the same time, the two districts are the most war-affected parts of
NKR. In 1992-93, Azerbaijani forces almost completely overran and
plundered the Mardakert district. Much of the Hadrut district
experienced the same fate, when deportation of its Armenian population
began in 1991. Another factor is that both these districts are located
at some distance from the center of economic activity in
NKR--Stepanakert. This is why we are trying to provide priority
assistance to the development of these two districts. Using this
opportunity I would like to urge all our compatriots and friends of
the Armenian people to take part in the telethon, including by
visiting the website of the Hayastan Fund at www.ArmeniaFund.org.
Armenian-American Advocacy and Karabakh
"Armenian Reporter": What can you say about the U.S. policy toward the
Karabakh conflict? Have there been any recent changes in this policy?
President Ghoukasian: In terms of the Karabakh conflict and the
associated peace process, there is a joint approach of the three
countries that cochair the OSCE Minsk Group [France, Russia, and the
United States]. Of course, Americans have been the most active in
recent years. I see a sincere desire [on the part of U.S.] to resolve
the conflict. But of course a resolution depends on not just the
mediators, but the parties themselves. At this time, I do not see any
effort on the part of the Azerbaijani rulers to resolve the conflict.
"Armenian Reporter": What is you assessment of the Armenian-American
lobby's work with regard to Karabakh? What ideas and wishes have you
expressed in terms of U.S. assistance to Karabakh and the security
situation?
President Ghoukasian: I hope that there will be greater
Armenian-American advocacy following the congressional elections
earlier this month. I think when it comes to Karabakh, there are clear
opportunities for the Armenian lobby. In my view, more work could be
done to expand the type of assistance currently provided to the people
of Karabakh, from solely humanitarian to developmental assistance as
well. And certainly it is my conviction that the U.S. Administration
and Congress cannot ignore the aggressive behavior of the Azerbaijani
rulers. It seems that the Armenian lobby could do more to draw the
attention of U.S. leadership to the blackmail, the threats, and the
actions of Azerbaijan--all of which are completely unacceptable by any
standard of decency or responsible international conduct. I believe
that all the conditions are now met for more active Armenian advocacy,
and I hope that we will all see significant results of these efforts
relatively soon.
"Armenian Reporter": While in Karabakh last month, I noticed that
there is great confidence in NKR's security and in the Karabakh army's
fighting abilities. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan's militarist campaign
continues. In your talk at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council last
Thursday [Nov. 16, 2006] you mentioned the possibility of sanctions
against Azerbaijan. Do you think the Armenian lobby in the U.S. could
play a role in thwarting Azerbaijan's campaign?
President Ghoukasian: One could envision a series of steps, including
the ones I mentioned in my talk. Such steps could include an embargo
on weapons' supplies to Azerbaijan, and certain economic sanctions
against Azerbaijan, which today prefers the language of force and
blackmail. In this case, the United States could play a role in
influencing the Karabakh conflict. But the first of these steps would
be an [official] assessment of specific countries that are capable of
affecting the existing balance of forces in Azerbaijan's policies.
As to our confidence in our ability to protect our borders, we indeed
have that confidence. We are not afraid of war. But it is our
conviction that war would mean catastrophic losses for all sides
involved and we therefore could never prefer a military approach. But
should Azerbaijan ever resume the fighting, we would naturally be able
to strike back, and we have made that obvious. I believe that when it
comes to our region, prevention of a new war should be the number one
priority for the international community, and particularly for the
United States.
Constitutional Referendum and Presidential Elections in NKR
"Armenian Reporter": Why did the NKR leadership decide to accelerate
the preparation of the draft of the new constitution this year?
President Ghoukasian: This issue has long been on our domestic policy
agenda. Adoption of a constitution was part of the presidential
campaign during the 1997 elections and again in 2002. Perhaps, it
would be more appropriate to ask: Why wasn't a constitution adopted
five or six years ago [before the end of Mr. Ghoukasian's first term
in office]?
This in part was connected to the peace process, and the hope of
reaching a peace agreement with Azerbaijan at that time. We in turn
wished neither to hamper this process in any way, nor to give
Azerbaijan any excuse to step back from what at the time seemed like a
constructive approach. While both then and now we strongly believe
that our constitution has nothing to do with Azerbaijan, there has
been a certain restraint on our part in the past. At the same time,
since the document under discussion would be adopted not for a year or
two, but for the long term, we thought that any rush in this process
would be inappropriate. So we decided to invest enough time in this to
be able to review the political development of NKR to date, discuss
the preferred models for our state institutions, and develop the final
constitutional draft. Finally, since development of a constitution was
my presidential pledge, and I truly believe this will be a
revolutionary step in Karabakh's political development, it is only
appropriate for me to try to fulfill this promise before the end of my
presidency. So, there is certainly nothing artificial in this process
of adopting a constitution.
"Armenian Reporter": Has there been any reaction to this process,
particularly from the cochair countries?
President Ghoukasian: Not so far. The process of adoption of a
constitution continues, and the referendum [planned for Dec. 10, 2006]
has yet to take place. I do not believe that there could be a negative
reaction and, certainly, we expect an objective assessment and
positive reaction from the international community, particularly from
the cochair countries, since this is another reflection of a
democratic progress taking place in Karabakh. At the same, we have
little interest in the reactions of countries such as Azerbaijan or
Turkey.
"Armenian Reporter": What would be the role of an NKR constitution
from the point of view of the integration of NKR and Armenia? How
similar is the current NKR draft to Armenia's constitution and what
are the differences?
President Ghoukasian: Considering the ongoing economic integration
with Armenia, we naturally would like our constitution to be not too
different from Armenia's. At the same time, the current constitutional
proposal takes into account NKR's specifics, such as the continued
state of martial law and its limited territory. So we could not simply
adopt Armenia's constitution in NKR. I believe our future constitution
will help define our relations with Armenia more clearly, and will
create a better-defined framework for our relations.
"Armenian Reporter": Last month, you said publicly that you would not
seek another term in office during NKR's presidential elections next
year. Was this a decision that came after some reflection and
analysis?
President Ghoukasian: I have never considered running for a third term
in office, because first of all this is not allowed under our existing
law. Secondly, it is of great importance to me that Nagorno-Karabakh
should continue to serve as a democratic example to other
countries--including countries recognized by the international
community. Most likely, speculations about a third term in office
began because some political and societal forces did indeed want me to
remain president. But I would repeat that I myself have never had such
ideas, and I consider that [for me to seek a third term] would not be
correct.
"Armenian Reporter": Have you made any plans for after the end of your
term next year?
President Ghoukasian: This would be something to discuss in another
interview. I think it is too early to say anything. Of course I have a
few ideas, but I do not think it would make sense to make them public
right now.
"Armenian Reporter": Do you have any preference regarding what kind of
candidate you would like to see succeed you in 2007 as president of
Nagorno-Karabakh?
President Ghoukasian: It is not all that important whom I would prefer
to see [as the next president]; it is up to the people of Karabakh to
decide this. Let's keep that in mind.
******************************************* ********************************
3. Fund for Armenian Relief raises $1.1 million through tribute to
Kevork Hovnanian; Foreign Minister Oskanian keynote speaker at gala
event in NY Public Library
New York--In a sparkling event at the New York Public Library on
Saturday, November 18, the Fund for Armenian Relief honored
businessperson and philanthropist Kevork Hovnanian for his 16 years as
founding chairman of one of the Armenian diaspora's leading relief and
development organizations. In anticipation of the gala tribute, FAR
raised $1.1 million for its numerous programs and projects in Armenia,
where it has been actively involved since the 1988 earthquake.
Armenia's foreign minister Vartan Oskanian made a special one-day trip
to the U.S. to attend the gala, where he was keynote speaker. In
stirring and animated remarks, Oskanian conveyed the regards of
Armenian president Kocharian to Mr. Hovnanian, and extolled the
honoree as a model of the way the diaspora should invest in the
Republic of Armenia, its institutions, and its citizens.
The foreign minister was one of many dignitaries attending the
function, including two former U.S. ambassadors to Armenia, Harry
Gilmore (who also delivered formal remarks) and John Evans; Armenia's
ambassador in Washington Tatoul Markarian, and its U.N. ambassador
Armen Martirossian; Carnegie Corporation of New York president Vartan
Gregorian; former New Jersey governor Brendan Byrne; the leaders of
many Armenian-American organizations, and FAR board members. Formal
remarks were also presented by Diocesan primate and FAR president
Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, and Ara Hovnanian, CEO of Hovnanian
Enterprises and son of the honoree. Randolph Sapah Gulian, who last
year succeeded Kevork Hovnanian as chairperson of FAR, was the
evening's master of ceremonies.
Of his tenure as the visionary leader of FAR--which has delivered more
than $265 million dollars in humanitarian relief and development
projects to Armenia since its inception in 1989--Mr. Hovnanian told
the audience of 400 well-wishers--Anyone who had been in Armenia four
days after the [1988] earthquake, as I was, would have done the same
thing I did?
The Fund for Armenian Relief is the humanitarian relief and
development arm of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of
America. Details and photos from the Kevork Hovnanian tribute will
appear in our next issue.
****************************************** *********************************
4. Toward an ethically grounded historiography of the Armenian
Genocide (book review)
A SHAMEFUL ACT
The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility
by Taner Akcam
New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006, 483 pp., $30 (hardcover)
by Lou Ann Matossian
On July 25, 2006, Turkish Parliament speaker Bulent Arinc protested to
his Dutch counterpart, "All documents we possess prove that there has
not been a genocide" (Anatolia News Agency). With his new history of
the Armenian Genocide, reconstructed for the first time through
extensive use of Ottoman archival materials, Taner Akcam, the first
Turkish intellectual to acknowledge the Genocide as such, argues quite
otherwise. In so doing, he calls upon the people of Turkey "to
consider the suffering inflicted in their name" (page 2).
Dedicated to the memory of a Muslim who saved Armenians, "A Shameful
Act" is a substantially revised and updated version of Akcam's 1999
book, "Insan Haklari ve Ermeni Sorunu" (Human rights and the Armenian
Question). The English title reflects the ethical foundations of this
scholarly work. The phrase "a shameful act" quotes Mustafa Kemal
(Ataturk), founder of the Turkish Republic, while "Turkish
responsibility" evokes not only accountability but obligation.
Moreover, the rhetorical shift from "Ermeni sorunu" to "Turkish
responsibility" inverts the so-called "Armenian Question" into an
interrogation of the actors who created it. Defining and scapegoating
a minority group as a "problem" is, after all, part of its
subordination.
For the most part, Armenians appear in the scholarly literature as a
collective object of the genocidal process, rather than as the
individual subjects of their own narratives of survival. Reading "A
Shameful Act," one longs to know more, for instance, about the
"several young girls" who spotted their parents' murderers at large in
Istanbul after the war; based on the daughters' testimony, the
perpetrators were arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison (290).
Nevertheless, Akcam's occasionally arid exposition is undergirded with
a strong moral sensibility.
The author's core belief is that all human societies, under the right
conditions, are inherently capable of mass violence. Accordingly, "to
prevent the recurrence of such an event, people must first consider
their own responsibility, discuss it, debate it, and recognize it. In
the absence of such honest consideration, there remains the high
probability of such acts being repeated.... There are no exceptions"
(2). The question of Turkish responsibility has wide implications
indeed.
Meticulously crafted, "A Shameful Act" is at heart a case study of
crime and injustice, justification and that which cannot be justified.
Although Akcam does not hesitate to use the G word throughout the
book, "the important thing," he says, "is not the term, but rather the
moral position that recognizes the crime and condemns it. The failure
of the official Turkish state approach is its insistence that this
immense crime was a justifiable act of state necessity" (9). Inasmuch
as genocide denotes a crime under international law, one could argue
that proper terminology is essential for recognition--and this book
would not disagree. However, the author is wrestling with a deeper
problem: how to establish the ethical foundations of international
law, "the prime matrix of all human rights, including the rights of
potential or actual genocide victims," in the words of Akcam's mentor,
Vahakn N. Dadrian. (Vahakn N. Dadrian, "Genocide as a Problem of
National and International Law: The World War I Armenian Case and Its
Contemporary Legal Ramifications," "Yale Journal of International
Law," vol. 14, no. 2 (Summer 1989), p. 333.)
As for the morality of denial, often described as the final stage of
genocide, "the attempt to justify and rationalize the death of a whole
nation," says the author, "must itself be considered a crime against
humanity" (203). Because "those who resort to mass murder on a
collective scale always put forward the justification that they acted
on behalf of the nation," (372) a society that rationalizes genocide
can justify any crime in terms of the national interest.
This lesson in ends and means is not, of course, limited to Turks and
Armenians, for Akcam shows how the postwar Allies redefined their
national interests to rationalize complicity in genocide denial, a
pattern that was to continue. As a British diplomat explained in 1922,
"the Turks have understood the situation well and will take things as
far as they possibly can. There is no consensus on this issue among
the Allies, some of whom even want to supply the Turks with money and
weapons.... Allies will not sever their relations with Turkey for the
sake of the Armenian question" (365). Akcam shows that the
contradiction between national interests and sovereignty, on one hand,
and the moral necessity of humanitarian intervention, on the other,
thwarted postwar attempts to bring the perpetrators of genocide to
justice; as seen in Darfur, the problem persists to this day.
* * *
Using Ottoman, German, Austrian, and American archival materials, "A
Shameful Act" covers the late nineteenth century through the postwar
trials and the emergence of the Turkish republic. All these sources,
taken together, point to the same conclusion: "under the terms of the
U.N. definition, and in light of all the documentary evidence, we
cannot but call the acts against the Armenians genocide" (9). Although
"proving" the Genocide is not the author's aim, a major contribution
of this study is to demonstrate that Ottoman and Western sources tell
substantially the same story--from complementary, not contradictory,
perspectives.
The steps leading to the decision for genocide, which Akcam dates to
late March 1915, are clearly explained. The timing is significant
because it predates the Armenian resistance at Van, which took place
in April but is cited in denialist literature as a rationale for the
Armenian deportations. However, the Van resistance did coincide with a
tactical change from strategic to genocidal deportations, as
communicated to Fourth Army commander Cemal Pasha in a telegram of
April 24, 1915: the very moment that Armenian community leaders were
being rounded up in Constantinople; the date commemorated ever since
as the beginning of the end of Western Armenia.
The Armenian Genocide was organized through parallel chains of
command, one through Union and Progress Party channels and the other
through the ranks of Ottoman bureaucracy. The strongest evidence of
genocidal intent--the crucial element in the United Nations
definition--comes from the overall coordinator of the deportations and
massacres, Interior Minister Mehmet Talaat, who declared to German
consul general Mordtmann: "What we are talking about ... is the
elimination of the Armenians" (156). According to Abdulahad Nuri, an
organizer of the Genocide in Aleppo, Talaat also stated: "The
intention of the deportations is annihilation." (168).
Circumstantially as well, the complete lack of preparations for the
deportees' survival, and the denial of any help offered to them, were
sufficient to demonstrate that the government's aim was intentional
extermination.
What did the Union and Progress Party hope to accomplish through
genocide? Ottoman sources show that the deportations and massacres
were part of a well-formulated and longstanding demographic policy to
Turkify the whole region and prevent the emergence of an independent
Armenia. During the spring of 1915, however, Turkification was not the
immediate concern. In case of a military defeat--which appeared to be
imminent-- the Unionist leaders had prepared a detailed plan for a war
of resistance throughout the country. The officers entrusted to
implement the resistance plan were well-known members of the
party-controlled Special Organization, which carried out the Armenian
Genocide. Although a clear connection between the resistance and the
Genocide has not been documented, "the decisions to enact the two
events were made during the same period and their simultaneous start
is significant." Unionist leaders likely felt that "a war of
resistance in Anatolia would be easier with the elimination of the
Armenian population, or at least a reduction of its numbers" (128).
All in all, "the deportations were hardly a matter of relocation,"
explains Akcam. "The issue was Armenian population density" (178).
The demographic principle was to limit Armenians to no more than 10
percent of the population in any given place. Armenians were
eliminated not just from their ancestral lands in the eastern
provinces, but throughout the length and breadth of Asia Minor. So
many were deported to Der Zor that the Interior Ministry had to alert
the governors of Adana, Erzurum, Bitlis, and Aleppo that the
concentration of Armenians in that region exceeded 10 percent. "This
explains the 1916 massacres in those areas and why Der Zor was the
center" (178), says Akcam. The 10-percent policy was applied to other
ethnic minorities, including Albanians, Arabs, Bosnians, and Kurds;
Assyrians and Greeks were expelled as well. Religion made a
difference: the Muslim minorities were dispersed among the Turkish
majority and expected to assimilate, while the region's two million
Christians--a third of the overall population of Asia Minor--were
killed or deported. The Armenians were particularly targeted for
annihilation, Akcam states. One hopes that further discussion of the
Young Turks' demographic policies will be forthcoming.
In March 1919, the Istanbul government officially acknowledged the
figure of 800,000 Armenian victims--a figure later quoted by Kemal
Ataturk and endorsed by eminent historian Yusuf H. Bayur. Akcam seems
most comfortable with this figure, which he cites more than once,
while noting that the estimates of those killed reach as high as 1.5
million. As for the prewar Armenian population and the proportion of
survivors, Akcam observes that the sources conflict and all are based
on political agendas. For practical reasons as well, the number of
Armenian women and children who were given to Turkish or Kurdish
families or kidnapped "is impossible to estimate" (183), despite
efforts to recover these survivors after the armistice.
Analyzing Turkey's transition from empire to republic, "A Shameful
Act" focuses on the postwar Ottoman military tribunal in Istanbul and
the British exchange of suspected war criminals held at Malta. A major
obstacle to building a case against the detainees was that the
evidence in British hands, although damning at the group level, was
insufficiently detailed to convict individual perpetrators. Although
the Ottoman military courts had collected abundant evidence against
individuals, the British, who had occupied Istanbul since March 1920,
failed to press for the surrender of those documents--a lapse that
Akcam finds "totally incomprehensible" (359).
While the Istanbul trials would come to exemplify the inability of a
perpetrator group to punish itself, their legacy was significant for
international law and human rights. It was in Istanbul, for the first
time, that individual perpetrators, regardless of rank and authority,
could be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Indeed, the very
concept of "crimes against humanity," which informed the tribunals on
genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, can be traced through
the Nuremberg trials after World War II and the Istanbul trials after
World War I, all the way back to the Allies' declaration of May 24,
1915, in response to the massacres of Armenians. The documentary
evidence introduced at Istanbul now serves to counter genocide denial;
in a sense, the trials are still going on.
"A Shameful Act" also covers the rival Ankara government's campaign to
wipe out the Republic of Armenia "politically and physically," as well
as reciprocal massacres in the Caucasus. Akcam indicates that the
newly independent Armenian government tried unsuccessfully to halt
revenge-seeking Armenian gangs while attempting to establish itself as
a nation-state. He strongly criticizes Turkish historiography for
citing anti-Muslim violence in an attempt to relativize, justify, or
even disprove the prior extermination of Armenians in 1915. The bottom
line: "Previous massacres are never a justification for subsequent
massacres. Or, in the Turkish case, subsequent massacres can never
justify earlier genocide" (329-30).
* * *
Richard G. Hovannisian, among others, has pointed out that over the
last quarter-century, denial of the Armenian Genocide has become
increasingly sophisticated and professional. (Richard G. Hovannisian,
"Introduction," "Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian
Genocide" (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), p. 16.) Akcam
sheds light on the origins of this nine-decade campaign, long before
the involvement of sympathetic or professionally hired Westerners.
None other than Talaat, who coordinated the deportations and
massacres, "laid the groundwork for the 'official Turkish version' "
at the Union and Progress Party's final congress in November 1918
(184). The first public declaration of "what would become the official
long-standing Turkish position" on the Genocide was made at the
Lausanne Conference by Turkey's lead negotiator and future president,
Ismet Inonu, who asserted that the traitorous Armenians got what was
coming to them (366).
Kemal (Ataturk), who generally tried to distance himself from the
whole issue, blamed the Armenians for abusing their special
"privileges"; he also suggested (prophetically, as it turned out) that
"the situation was not even half the scale as things that were done
without apology in the states of Europe" (347). At Kemal's direction,
"Ankara went so far as to organize a propaganda campaign that
mentioned Muslim massacres whenever the Armenian case was raised,
especially in Europe. A campaign abroad regarding the massacres
perpetrated against the Armenians by the Turks was countered with a
plan 'that ... would ... eliminate the effect through a
counter-campaign'" (335).
And so it continues. The current campaign, inaugurated in 2002 by the
Turkish government's Committee for the Fight Against Baseless Claims
of Genocide, mandates denial in Turkish classrooms while seeking to
insert it (as the requisite "alternative viewpoint") in Western
education, legislation, and media. Meanwhile, Taner Akcam and a
growing network of colleagues are laying the foundations for a fully
integrated history of the Armenian Genocide, in keeping with
international scholarly standards. As their groundbreaking 2005
conference at Istanbul's Bilgi University demonstrated, it is no
longer possible to speak of a single "Turkish point of view."
Nor, it turns out, can one even speak of a single "Ataturk point of
view." But as Akcam shows, Kemal's April 24, 1920, condemnation of the
Armenian Genocide as "shameful acts belonging to the past" (348), not
to mention his demand for "a thorough explanation and apology" (347),
find no echo in the history and foreign policy of the republic he
largely created.
When the architects of mass murder are remembered as patriots and
heroes, and national interests are used to justify the repression of a
crime against humanity, the vortex of genocide completes another turn.
"A Shameful Act" breaks that cycle. Countering a resurgent
ultranationalist movement that prosecutes freethinkers and glorifies
the perpetrators, Akcam challenges his fellow citizens to redefine
their own national interests to confront the reality of the Armenian
Genocide. And why should they take such a risk? Because "only full
integration of Turkey's past can set the country on the path to
democracy" (13).
That path, at the present time, leads toward Europe. With the world's
eyes on the prosecution of writers such as Elif Shafak, Ragip
Zarakolu, Hrant Dink, and Orhan Pamuk under Turkey's controversial
Article 301, the country's embattled progress will be measured, in
part, by its response to Taner Akcam's work. "A Shameful Act" opens
the way to a comprehensive, intellectually rigorous, and ethically
grounded historiography of the Armenian Genocide.
* * *
Lou Ann Matossian, Ph.D., is program director of the Cafesjian Family
Foundation in Minneapolis.
************************************ ***************************************
5. Editorial: A visible boost for the rule of law
Gendarmes in jungle camouflage have been patrolling the streets of
downtown Yerevan since early November. Such a scene would normally
alarm us. But today we welcome it, as the authorities are fighting a
formidable foe: automobile-traffic gridlock.
Thousands of additional cars pour onto the streets of Yerevan each
year--and traffic gets worse and worse. Beyond sheer volume, however,
traffic is exacerbated by an epidemic of lawless driving. The typical
Yerevan driver spends the bulk of an ever-longer ride talking about
other drivers' lack of respect for traffic laws, while breaking one or
two of them himself for good measure.
Among the worst offenders are minibus drivers. These men have the
thankless task of driving back and forth on a set route several times
a day, charging passengers 100 drams (about a quarter) a ride. They
are supposed to stop only at designated bus stops; and they are
supposed to take no more passengers than can be seated in the minibus.
In fact, however, they fill the cars so densely that a prospective
rider has to consider not only the risks associated with a crash, but
also the likelihood of asphyxiation. And they stop everywhere. Indeed,
their favorite place to stop is on crosswalks.
One reason for the attraction to crosswalks is that the designated bus
stops are a favorite place for taxis to park.
This summer, the city of Yerevan installed elegant signposts and
shelters with benches and maps at every bus stop. Now, at last, the
city has launched a campaign to keep the cars out of the bus stops,
and to get the buses to stop only in designated stops.
The traffic police are participating in this campaign, but the most
visible face of the campaign is the gendarme at the bus stop.
Lawlessness in the streets is a source of frustration and a visible
repudiation of civility and, indeed, civilization. Kudos to Mayor
Yervand Zakharyan and his partners in law enforcement for making this
visible effort to enforce the rule of law.
The mayor's spokesperson, Anahit Yesayan, assures us that the campaign
will continue indefinitely. "It's about people's mentality," she said,
"and that takes time to change." Meanwhile, the city has ordered
larger buses to replace the minibuses and to reduce the number of such
vehicles on the road.
The next rule to enforce, may we suggest, is the one that gives
pedestrians the right of way on crosswalks. It's on the books.
****************************************** *********************************
Direct your inquiries to [email protected]
(c) 2006 CS Media Enterprises LLC. All Rights Reserved
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress