Tweet
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
By Armen Manvelian
AZG Armenian Daily
26/04/2008
ARMENOCIDE
Armenocide - this was how the known Arab historian Musa Pren
characterized the tragedy that occurred 93 years ago in the Ottoman
Empire. By creating the word "genocide" through uniting the Latin-Greek
"race" and "murder" words, Famous Polish attorney Rafael Lemken
wanted to show the whole horror that threatens peoples subject to
mass assassinations, while Pren's "Armenocide" concretizes and gives
an ethnic characteristic of the matter.
According to Pr. Nikolay Hovhannissian, the word "Armenocide" "has
not only a linguistic but also a political side that has a concrete
ethno-political content that clearly mentions annihilation of Armens -
Armenians as an ethnos. The word is so lucid and concrete that cannot
give rise to alternative interpretation.
At the start of the 20th century, the tragedy that happened in Western
Armenia, on the territory of Ottoman Empire, changed the fate of a
whole nation, and penetrating into the memory of peoples, it turned
into a desire to live and to strive.
The tragedy left a fatal spot, making a whole people suffer a
complex. Such complexes, however, are not cured through short memory
or through the loss of the latter. These are cured to spite the
organizers of the Genocide, due to life, development and victory. To
exclude repetition of similar tragedies it is important to understand
the historic and political motivations of it. Historic and Political
Reasons of the Armenocide If we speak about the history of the
Armenian nation, we can divide it into two parts - before and after
the Genocide. This watershed, which we call genocide, assassination,
Armenian massacres and at last Armenocide, needs serious study and
analysis, particularly from the point of view of developing security
of the second independent Republic of Armenia.
Turning to the Armenian Genocide - the Armenocide - we should note
that it became possible because of a number of historic events: it
occurred under the conditions of collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the
World War Two and the strengthening of the idea of creating the state
of Turan. We can state that these events, however, came to complete
the policy the Ottoman Empire was executing against Armenians since
the day of its creation. Generally, turning to the history of creation
and existence of the Ottoman Empire, we should mention that it was
some kind of totalitarian Empire. Preceding that or in that period
similar empires were being created not only owing to military power,
but also due to economic and cultural expansion.
Before, the metropolises forming the Empire were superior over the
peoples under their domination in regard to the level of economic,
military and cultural development, which allowed them to actively
influence these people and keep them under their domination.
Different from this, from the above-mentioned economic, military and
cultural factors only the military one was vital in Turkey. That is
to say that being on a lower level of development, the people forming
the Empire - the Turks - could control other peoples of the Empire
only with the military force.
Thus, there was no ideological, political, ethnic or cultural unity
within the Empire. It was solely the power of arms that provided the
opportunity to retain the Empire for centuries. Being on a lower
level of economic, cultural and political development than other
peoples of the Empire, Turks could only grab.
This found its expression also in the fact that the nomadic tribe that
penetrated into Small Asia from Central Asia aimed at evading also
these territories to make these a permanent place of their inhabitance.
There were only two ways to do this, either by assimilating the local
nations or by annihilating them. The first one seemed to be a rather
complex problem, since, as it was mentioned, the nations living here -
the Armenians, Greeks, Arabs and Syrians were ahead of dominant Turks
in regard to the level of their development. While the second way was
rather simple and dear to them, considering also that the latter had
great experience of it, since they were keeping the Empire only with
the military force and cruelty. However, if in the period of power
and flourishing of the Ottoman Empire the idea of having a homeland
was not primary, then in the 19th century it turned essential for
the founders of the collapsing Empire - the Turks. We can say that
this was also one of the peculiarities of this Empire. Other Empires -
the Roman, the Russian or the British - had their original motherland,
a historic land, where they could continue to live after the collapse
of the Empire. The homeland of Turks was Central Asia and Siberia,
where they were not going to return. Therefore, an own motherland -
the metropolis - had to be created. Small Asia could become such
motherland for Turks, since it had strategic importance both due
to its geographical position and in respect to the possibility of
establishing a new Empire in the future. However, the Armenians,
Greeks and Assyrians had been living here for centuries. And because
Armenians occupied the heart of this territory, they became the
primary targets of attack.
We should note that to prevent the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, in
the 19th century Turks tried to suggest different ideologies, which,
according to them, could unite the peoples of the Empire. The idea of
New Osmanism that emerged in the second half of the 19th century aimed
at uniting the nations of the Empire notwithstanding their religious
or ethnic belongingness. According to ideologists of New Osmanism,
this national ideology could be attractive for other nations of the
Empire and would create the opportunity to prevent the separatist
dispositions of the peoples under Turkish domination. However, from
the very beginning the artificialness and bareness of this ideology
was apparent. Therefore, it could not become the force that would
unite the peoples of the Ottoman Empire. The idea of Islamism or
Pan Islamism suggested by Abdul Hamid Second did not justify itself,
either. The aim of this ideology was to unite Turks with the Muslim
peoples comprising majority in the Empire, particularly Arabs - the
founders of Islam. However, for Arabs Turkish Sultans could not become
founders of a new Caliphate, therefore the unification on the ground
of Islam did not succeed, either. Different from their predecessors,
these aimed at creating a new Empire, the heart of which had to be the
Small Asia. Different from the collapsing Empire, it had to stretch
to Caucasus, to Central Asia and Siberia, i.e. those territories
where Turkic nations lived. In fact, being deeply nationalistic, this
ideology targeted at returning to own roots and uniting all Turkic
nations. Armenians were standing across this route; they stood between
the Turkic tribes of Small Asia and Caucasus. The latter intended
to lead an active policy of "Turkisation," and it is not in vain
that after gaining power, the Young Turks, preaching the ideology of
Pan Turkism, prohibited all national unions - the Armenian, Greek,
Arabic ones, etc.
Thus, judging from the above we can conclude that all attempts
to preserve the Ottoman Empire had failed, so had the policies of
Osmanism and Islamism. There was no time for implementing the policy of
"Turkisation."
Therefore, Turks had put an aim to create a purely Turkic state,
annihilating all non-Turkic peoples. The largest Christian nation
of the Empire - the Armenians - was hindering the accomplishment of
these programs.
Thus, in this period it was already clear that the destiny of Armenians
was predetermined. The Armenocide and the Islam We should mention that
Armenian and foreign historians have written much about the Islamic
factor in the Armenian Genocide. The opinions here are unequivocal -
although the Turks tried to use the religious factor to organize the
massacre of Armenians, it was not a success. The people comprising
majority in the Ottoman Empire - the Arabs - did not back the idea,
therefore, it became impossible to escalate large-scale interreligious
clashes.
Nevertheless, despite these facts, the idea dominates among
the Armenian society that the Armenian Genocide occurred just
on the religious ground, and that being surrounded with Muslims,
Armenians are doomed. From time to time, this idea, having nothing
to do with reality, is being articulated by interior and exterior
political circles to show the fact of lack of alternative in foreign
policy. However, in reality the holy war - the Jihad - declared by
the last Sultan Sehmed Fifth against Christians was targeted at
justifying the brutalities and mass assassination of Armenians,
as well as the involvement of all Muslims in this. However, the
Arab theologians and religious leaders, who enjoyed great respect
in the Muslim world, did not back the idea of Jihad. The Governor
of Hijaz and the Sheriff of Mecca Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashemi, who
was considered the greatest authority in the Muslim word, did not
only refuse to support the Sultan's decision, but also urged all
Orthodox Muslims to help Armenians and defend them. Many Arab leaders
and the Arab people were assisting the Armenians in the desert of
Der Zor. Arab divisions of the Turkish army were refusing to fight
against Armenians. The attempts of Turks to use the Arabs to suppress
the self-defense struggle of Armenians failed. Arab Governors of a
number of Turkish provinces were just refusing to execute the orders
from Constantinople to displace and massacre Armenians. However,
Turks could not keep from noting all this, and many Arabs suffered
for protecting Armenians. It is important to mention here that Sultan
Mehmed Fifth declared the holy war against the Christian population
of the Empire only after getting the "blessing" of allied Christian
Germany. Generally, it should be said that at the time when Muslim
Arabs were sacrificing their lives to help Armenians, the Christian
Europe was either supporting Turkey or was pretending not to see the
mass assassinations in Western Armenia. Generally, turning to the
position of European powers, we should note that on one hand they were
using the Armenian Question to interfere with the interior affairs of
the Empire, thus causing the discontent of Turkey, on the other hand
many times the activeness of Europeans was preventing or suspending the
massacre of Armenians in this or that Province. Nevertheless, to say
that during the war the European countries were unable to influence
the policy of Young Turks would be incorrect, either. Rather, the
factor of political appropriateness played its decisive role here, i.e.
the fact of the massacre of Armenians would later enable the
European powers to present accusations on Turkey to seize additional
concessions from the latter. Historic lessons of the Armenocide To
exclude reoccurrence of the Armenian Genocide and provide for the
security of the nation it is necessary to seriously investigate the
historic and political reasons of the events.
The study of the policy of the most dreadful crime against humanity
- the genocide - is of great importance not only for contemporary
generations but also for current politicians and for all those who
determine or somehow influence the directions of Armenia's interior
and foreign policies. It is essential to understand the most crucial
- the fact that contemporary Turkey has been formed in the result of
the Armenian Genocide, the Armenocide. If not the Armenian Genocide,
there would be no Turkey, either.
This is the truth, which the former and current authorities in
Ankara understand pretty well, and it is this fact that explains
the denunciation that they demonstrate towards the fact of Genocide
recognition.
It can be asserted even that contemporary Turkey avoids recognition of
the Genocide not as much because of the fear of material or territorial
demands, rather it is concerned with the moral side of the question.
Kemal Turkey was built on the basis of a fault value system, where
people carrying the burden of executing the Genocide were considered
divine. In reality, the heroes and famous political figures of this
nation resembled a butcher, whose hands are foul with the blood of
millions of innocent people. Such findings can become the moral blow
and loss of faith for the contemporary Turkish generation, which is
not even aware of the events in the Ottoman Empire at the start of
the 20th century, which can in its turn lead to the collapse of the
country. It is a historic truth that the flattening of own power and
moral characteristics can be destructive for any state and nation.
It needs to be mentioned that regardless of our will the fact is that
the historic memory of the Armenocide will always endure in the fate of
the Armenian nation, shaping and directing its policy not only toward
neighboring Turkey, but also towards those countries, which somehow
contributed to the execution of the Armenian Genocide. At the same
time, this memory provides the opportunity to exclude reoccurrence
of the Armenocide in the future and to build the national security
system proceeding from the principle of excluding similar tragedies.
By Armen Manvelian
AZG Armenian Daily
26/04/2008
ARMENOCIDE
Armenocide - this was how the known Arab historian Musa Pren
characterized the tragedy that occurred 93 years ago in the Ottoman
Empire. By creating the word "genocide" through uniting the Latin-Greek
"race" and "murder" words, Famous Polish attorney Rafael Lemken
wanted to show the whole horror that threatens peoples subject to
mass assassinations, while Pren's "Armenocide" concretizes and gives
an ethnic characteristic of the matter.
According to Pr. Nikolay Hovhannissian, the word "Armenocide" "has
not only a linguistic but also a political side that has a concrete
ethno-political content that clearly mentions annihilation of Armens -
Armenians as an ethnos. The word is so lucid and concrete that cannot
give rise to alternative interpretation.
At the start of the 20th century, the tragedy that happened in Western
Armenia, on the territory of Ottoman Empire, changed the fate of a
whole nation, and penetrating into the memory of peoples, it turned
into a desire to live and to strive.
The tragedy left a fatal spot, making a whole people suffer a
complex. Such complexes, however, are not cured through short memory
or through the loss of the latter. These are cured to spite the
organizers of the Genocide, due to life, development and victory. To
exclude repetition of similar tragedies it is important to understand
the historic and political motivations of it. Historic and Political
Reasons of the Armenocide If we speak about the history of the
Armenian nation, we can divide it into two parts - before and after
the Genocide. This watershed, which we call genocide, assassination,
Armenian massacres and at last Armenocide, needs serious study and
analysis, particularly from the point of view of developing security
of the second independent Republic of Armenia.
Turning to the Armenian Genocide - the Armenocide - we should note
that it became possible because of a number of historic events: it
occurred under the conditions of collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the
World War Two and the strengthening of the idea of creating the state
of Turan. We can state that these events, however, came to complete
the policy the Ottoman Empire was executing against Armenians since
the day of its creation. Generally, turning to the history of creation
and existence of the Ottoman Empire, we should mention that it was
some kind of totalitarian Empire. Preceding that or in that period
similar empires were being created not only owing to military power,
but also due to economic and cultural expansion.
Before, the metropolises forming the Empire were superior over the
peoples under their domination in regard to the level of economic,
military and cultural development, which allowed them to actively
influence these people and keep them under their domination.
Different from this, from the above-mentioned economic, military and
cultural factors only the military one was vital in Turkey. That is
to say that being on a lower level of development, the people forming
the Empire - the Turks - could control other peoples of the Empire
only with the military force.
Thus, there was no ideological, political, ethnic or cultural unity
within the Empire. It was solely the power of arms that provided the
opportunity to retain the Empire for centuries. Being on a lower
level of economic, cultural and political development than other
peoples of the Empire, Turks could only grab.
This found its expression also in the fact that the nomadic tribe that
penetrated into Small Asia from Central Asia aimed at evading also
these territories to make these a permanent place of their inhabitance.
There were only two ways to do this, either by assimilating the local
nations or by annihilating them. The first one seemed to be a rather
complex problem, since, as it was mentioned, the nations living here -
the Armenians, Greeks, Arabs and Syrians were ahead of dominant Turks
in regard to the level of their development. While the second way was
rather simple and dear to them, considering also that the latter had
great experience of it, since they were keeping the Empire only with
the military force and cruelty. However, if in the period of power
and flourishing of the Ottoman Empire the idea of having a homeland
was not primary, then in the 19th century it turned essential for
the founders of the collapsing Empire - the Turks. We can say that
this was also one of the peculiarities of this Empire. Other Empires -
the Roman, the Russian or the British - had their original motherland,
a historic land, where they could continue to live after the collapse
of the Empire. The homeland of Turks was Central Asia and Siberia,
where they were not going to return. Therefore, an own motherland -
the metropolis - had to be created. Small Asia could become such
motherland for Turks, since it had strategic importance both due
to its geographical position and in respect to the possibility of
establishing a new Empire in the future. However, the Armenians,
Greeks and Assyrians had been living here for centuries. And because
Armenians occupied the heart of this territory, they became the
primary targets of attack.
We should note that to prevent the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, in
the 19th century Turks tried to suggest different ideologies, which,
according to them, could unite the peoples of the Empire. The idea of
New Osmanism that emerged in the second half of the 19th century aimed
at uniting the nations of the Empire notwithstanding their religious
or ethnic belongingness. According to ideologists of New Osmanism,
this national ideology could be attractive for other nations of the
Empire and would create the opportunity to prevent the separatist
dispositions of the peoples under Turkish domination. However, from
the very beginning the artificialness and bareness of this ideology
was apparent. Therefore, it could not become the force that would
unite the peoples of the Ottoman Empire. The idea of Islamism or
Pan Islamism suggested by Abdul Hamid Second did not justify itself,
either. The aim of this ideology was to unite Turks with the Muslim
peoples comprising majority in the Empire, particularly Arabs - the
founders of Islam. However, for Arabs Turkish Sultans could not become
founders of a new Caliphate, therefore the unification on the ground
of Islam did not succeed, either. Different from their predecessors,
these aimed at creating a new Empire, the heart of which had to be the
Small Asia. Different from the collapsing Empire, it had to stretch
to Caucasus, to Central Asia and Siberia, i.e. those territories
where Turkic nations lived. In fact, being deeply nationalistic, this
ideology targeted at returning to own roots and uniting all Turkic
nations. Armenians were standing across this route; they stood between
the Turkic tribes of Small Asia and Caucasus. The latter intended
to lead an active policy of "Turkisation," and it is not in vain
that after gaining power, the Young Turks, preaching the ideology of
Pan Turkism, prohibited all national unions - the Armenian, Greek,
Arabic ones, etc.
Thus, judging from the above we can conclude that all attempts
to preserve the Ottoman Empire had failed, so had the policies of
Osmanism and Islamism. There was no time for implementing the policy of
"Turkisation."
Therefore, Turks had put an aim to create a purely Turkic state,
annihilating all non-Turkic peoples. The largest Christian nation
of the Empire - the Armenians - was hindering the accomplishment of
these programs.
Thus, in this period it was already clear that the destiny of Armenians
was predetermined. The Armenocide and the Islam We should mention that
Armenian and foreign historians have written much about the Islamic
factor in the Armenian Genocide. The opinions here are unequivocal -
although the Turks tried to use the religious factor to organize the
massacre of Armenians, it was not a success. The people comprising
majority in the Ottoman Empire - the Arabs - did not back the idea,
therefore, it became impossible to escalate large-scale interreligious
clashes.
Nevertheless, despite these facts, the idea dominates among
the Armenian society that the Armenian Genocide occurred just
on the religious ground, and that being surrounded with Muslims,
Armenians are doomed. From time to time, this idea, having nothing
to do with reality, is being articulated by interior and exterior
political circles to show the fact of lack of alternative in foreign
policy. However, in reality the holy war - the Jihad - declared by
the last Sultan Sehmed Fifth against Christians was targeted at
justifying the brutalities and mass assassination of Armenians,
as well as the involvement of all Muslims in this. However, the
Arab theologians and religious leaders, who enjoyed great respect
in the Muslim world, did not back the idea of Jihad. The Governor
of Hijaz and the Sheriff of Mecca Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashemi, who
was considered the greatest authority in the Muslim word, did not
only refuse to support the Sultan's decision, but also urged all
Orthodox Muslims to help Armenians and defend them. Many Arab leaders
and the Arab people were assisting the Armenians in the desert of
Der Zor. Arab divisions of the Turkish army were refusing to fight
against Armenians. The attempts of Turks to use the Arabs to suppress
the self-defense struggle of Armenians failed. Arab Governors of a
number of Turkish provinces were just refusing to execute the orders
from Constantinople to displace and massacre Armenians. However,
Turks could not keep from noting all this, and many Arabs suffered
for protecting Armenians. It is important to mention here that Sultan
Mehmed Fifth declared the holy war against the Christian population
of the Empire only after getting the "blessing" of allied Christian
Germany. Generally, it should be said that at the time when Muslim
Arabs were sacrificing their lives to help Armenians, the Christian
Europe was either supporting Turkey or was pretending not to see the
mass assassinations in Western Armenia. Generally, turning to the
position of European powers, we should note that on one hand they were
using the Armenian Question to interfere with the interior affairs of
the Empire, thus causing the discontent of Turkey, on the other hand
many times the activeness of Europeans was preventing or suspending the
massacre of Armenians in this or that Province. Nevertheless, to say
that during the war the European countries were unable to influence
the policy of Young Turks would be incorrect, either. Rather, the
factor of political appropriateness played its decisive role here, i.e.
the fact of the massacre of Armenians would later enable the
European powers to present accusations on Turkey to seize additional
concessions from the latter. Historic lessons of the Armenocide To
exclude reoccurrence of the Armenian Genocide and provide for the
security of the nation it is necessary to seriously investigate the
historic and political reasons of the events.
The study of the policy of the most dreadful crime against humanity
- the genocide - is of great importance not only for contemporary
generations but also for current politicians and for all those who
determine or somehow influence the directions of Armenia's interior
and foreign policies. It is essential to understand the most crucial
- the fact that contemporary Turkey has been formed in the result of
the Armenian Genocide, the Armenocide. If not the Armenian Genocide,
there would be no Turkey, either.
This is the truth, which the former and current authorities in
Ankara understand pretty well, and it is this fact that explains
the denunciation that they demonstrate towards the fact of Genocide
recognition.
It can be asserted even that contemporary Turkey avoids recognition of
the Genocide not as much because of the fear of material or territorial
demands, rather it is concerned with the moral side of the question.
Kemal Turkey was built on the basis of a fault value system, where
people carrying the burden of executing the Genocide were considered
divine. In reality, the heroes and famous political figures of this
nation resembled a butcher, whose hands are foul with the blood of
millions of innocent people. Such findings can become the moral blow
and loss of faith for the contemporary Turkish generation, which is
not even aware of the events in the Ottoman Empire at the start of
the 20th century, which can in its turn lead to the collapse of the
country. It is a historic truth that the flattening of own power and
moral characteristics can be destructive for any state and nation.
It needs to be mentioned that regardless of our will the fact is that
the historic memory of the Armenocide will always endure in the fate of
the Armenian nation, shaping and directing its policy not only toward
neighboring Turkey, but also towards those countries, which somehow
contributed to the execution of the Armenian Genocide. At the same
time, this memory provides the opportunity to exclude reoccurrence
of the Armenocide in the future and to build the national security
system proceeding from the principle of excluding similar tragedies.