Tweet
THE ARMENIAN QUESTION, 2008
Harut Sassounian
PRIMARY SOURCE
April 24, 2008
LAT
Harut Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier and a leading
figure in the local Armenian-American community, visited the Times
this week to discuss relations with Turkey, genocide recognition and
other matters. Here are some highlights.
Giving a forum to the ATAA
Tim Cavanaugh: The Times recently put up a transcript of our meeting
with the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. You've indicated
that that's comparable to giving, says, skinheads a platform to deny
the Holocaust.
Could you expand on that?
Harut Sassounian: I fully respect freedom of expression -- after
all, I'm the publisher of the California Courier, so I understand
the mission and purpose of journalists and editors. However, I took
offense, and a lot of the people who contacted me were offended, that
this group could come in an not only have a meeting -- which is not a
problem, having a meeting with any group -- but then have their words
of denial put on the world wide web. Even with the best intentions
of educating and informing the community about their position, the
L.A. Times is becoming in indirect conduit for denial of genocide,
which is very offensive to us.
Tim Cavanaugh: Clearly anything I say on this is going to sound
defensive, but I would say there's news value in hearing these
people state their position. This is not a fringe group; it's a well
established organization.
Harut Sassounian: Well let me just say one thing about that and then
we can move on. Any group, no matter who they are, that denies any
genocide or holocaust, I can not with a clear conscience call them
a respectable group.
They lose respectability when they deny genocide.
Talking Turkey
Harut Sassounian: I avoid interfacing with Turkish officials, because
they're bound by their positions to propagate the official Turkish
line of denial. So there's no point in having any communication
with an official who can't say anything other than the government's
position. I've had wonderful conversations with individual Turkish
citizens, even when we may disagree.
I've had many offers to meet with consuls or ambassadors, but I turn
down all invitations because they know what I'm going to say and I know
what they're going to say, so there's no point offending each other.
Paul Thornton: But they would say they're inviting you to join them
in some kind of fact-finding mission that will determine the final
say in this -- even though historians agree...
Harut Sassounian: Yeah, as far as fact finding, I'm not the one who
needs fact-finding. So there's nothing for me to join. I welcome
and encourage Turkish, officials, scholars and journalists to do all
the fact finding they need. If they have questions, I'll be happy to
answer questions or direct them to sources. But I don't need to find
out what happened. I know what happened. My grandparents' families
on both sides were wiped out. So that's not something I read in a
book. I grew up with my grandfather and grandmother telling me the
hell they went through. It would be besmirching their good name to
join in some kind of fact finding. I know what happened.
Widespread recognition of the Armenian genocide
Tim Cavanaugh: My anecdotal impression is that there's pretty wide
acceptance of the reality of the Armenian genocide: popularly in the
United States, and maybe worldwide. I mean, a substantial number of
people in the world don't even know the Holocaust happened, so you're
never going to have total awareness, but there does seem to be pretty
wide recognition.
Harut Sassounian: That is a very correct impression. After all, if you
just look at what has taken place, it goes all the way back to 1915. So
it's not surprising that not many people know what happened. Most
people don't follow the news as closely as journalists. To that
effect the Holocaust is a more recent event, and it took place in the
center of Europe, where there were films and archives, and the Allies
filmed all the evidence in the death camps. With the Armenian genocide
there were some pictures, some films, but the memory is much dimmer,
because it's so far in the past.
However, your observation is correct. Scores of countries, parliaments,
have passed resolutions recognizing it as genocide. The U.S. Congress
itself, all the way back in 1916. There was a Senate resolution in
1920; more recently in 1975 the House passed a resolution recognizing
the genocide. In 1984 there was a second resolution. President Reagan
in 1981 signed a presidential proclamation saying "genocide." The
UN Sub-commission on Human Rights did a study and concluded it was
genocide. The European Parliament in 1987 passed a resolution. And
many others have since then. So at this point it's no longer what
we used to call the forgotten genocide or the hidden Holocaust. Most
people who know such things are aware of it.
Tim Cavanaugh: So what are you campaigning for now? I mean there was
this thing last year where Jane Harman disappointed a lot of people
locally. What would we be looking for now in terms of recognition?
Harut Sassounian: Let's dispose of Jane Harman before we get on to more
serious issues. Jane Harman's mistake was that she was a co-sponsor of
the genocide resolution; while remaining on record as the co-sponsor,
she wrote a letter to the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee asking that the resolution not be brought up for a vote. So
she was saying one thing openly and doing something else behind the
scenes. That's double-talk and dishonest in my book. If she'd come
out and said "I don't support this resolution" that would have been
something we could respond to. But instead she gives the impression
to the community: "I'm on your side, I support you.
But I'm going to work behind your back to undermine this resolution."
Coming back to the more serious issue, for several decades after 1915,
parts of various families survived the genocide. Some families were
completely wiped out, so there are no inheritors there. Others, like
my family, they married other survivors and formed new families. So
initially, they found themselves in the deserts of Syria, no housing,
no food, nothing. Completely in destitute shape. So what was on their
mind was getting a mud hut to live in and a piece of bread to eat. Over
time, they built churches, schools, a semblance of normal life. Then
people of the next generation started forming groups dedicated to
recognizing the injustice that was done to them. They would write
letters to government officials, which would get ignored.
When my generation came along, we were the first to get educated,
know foreign languages, understand the ways of politics. It was this
generation that began to get some recognition of the genocide. Little
by little, as things began to change, the Turkish government started
to react, started saying there's no such thing, just ridiculed it. But
as the world began to accept this, the Turkish government started
putting serious money and effort behind the denial. So they brought
in hundreds of Turkish and non-Turkish scholars, hired lobbying firms.
But now the genocide is an established fact. So we're not clamoring
anymore about the world ignoring us. And the L.A. Times is the best
example of that.
The paper is on record recognizing the genocide. So are the New York
Times and the Boston Globe. Even recently, Time magazine issued a
statement recognizing it as genocide and saying it would be referred
to as such.
So now we're back to 1915. In 1915 there was a nation living on its
own ancestral homeland. They had been there long before there was a
Turkey. In addition to losing 1.5 million people, we were uprooted
from our homeland.
So what Armenians would like, and this is not a dream that can be
realized anytime in the near future, is justice. Everything was taken
from them: their lands, their churches, bank accounts, livestock,
homes, everything.
This was a gross injustice done to these people. Just asking for
recognition from the Turks, having them come and say "Yes, 90 or 100
years ago, your ancestors were wiped out," that doesn't do anything. We
already know we were wiped out.
So what we want, as a right, no matter how impossible the
implementation, as a right we demand justice for the Armenian
people. For all the stuff that was taken from them we demand just
compensation. And that can take many forms. This is where Armenians
and Turks should sit down, and have a very lengthy and serious
discussion about what can be done, what's realistic and what's not,
what form it should take, whether it's realistic to demand land at
this point, whether it's realistic to make financial compensation,
as Germany did with survivors of the Holocaust... At least at the
surface level, Armenian churches, religious monuments in Turkey,
should be returned to the Armenian Church in Turkey. Not to the United
States or Armenia or some foreign entity. But for the few survivors
who live in Turkey still.
These are citizens of Turkey and these are their houses of worship. And
they have the right, under the Treaty of Lausanne, to worship there...
Court cases
Paul Thornton: What's preventing a case from being brought to the
international court right now?
Harut Sassounian: Nothing's really preventing anyone. There are
several practical issues. One is that Armenians for many decades were
trying to recover and establish the facts of the genocide, so they
weren't running to court. In recent years, lawyers filed against New
York Life, and got a $20 million settlement for people who had life
insurance policies. Now there are suits against several German banks,
to recover funds that Armenians deposited before the genocide. There
was also a large amount of money deposited in Ottoman Bank. And that
line still exists today. So at some point, Armenians are going to
go for their possessions, and go to the European courts with their
deeds of trust and demand that they get their possessions back.
The second answer is that the world court can only take cases brought
by governments. For many years there was no Armenian nation. So now
we have the Republic of Armenian, which is in desperate straits,
so they're not going to go and antagonize Turkey, which is a much
stronger neighbor. And the Diaspora has no standing to go into court.
This is not about wishful thinking. You have to go to international
experts and find out, for example, does a court now, in 2008, deal
with an event that took place 93 years ago? You have to look at
questions regarding the Genocide Convention of 1948, whether that has
any retroactive effect. Those are very complex legal issues. It's not
a matter of just civilians saying "I want this or that." Because the
worst thing that can happen to Armenians is, if they're not skilled
in legal issues, if they just go and file in court and the court
dismisses the case because it has no jurisdiction, then the next day
the Turkish propaganda machine will say, "The Armenians tried to file
a genocide claim but it was dismissed because it had no merit."
Realpolitik axis
Tim Cavanaugh: One of the things that really seems to make it tough
for these kinds of discussions is this axis in Washington D.C. of
realpolitik types who take the line that we can't do anything
to infuriate Turkey, that we need to have them on board, they're
important to Israel, and so forth.
What presence do you maintain in D.C.?
Harut Sassounian: We have a couple of small Armenian organizations
with small staffs, who try to defend Armenian interests and counter
the Turkish efforts.
But as for realpolitik, I studied international affairs and I was
a U.N.
delegate for ten years, so I know the reality of the world. And I know
many of the things we say run counter to realpolitik. But let's stay
at the level of realpolitik for a moment, and not get into issues of
justice or truth. If U.S. officials and Israeli officials, from day
one, or even now, would say to the Turkish republic: "We are allies,
we share common interests, we wouldn't want to do anything to hurt
you. But this is something that was done more than 90 years ago, by a
former regime that no longer exists. We cannot, because of friendship,
go against the truth. This is history. We're not talking about taking
action, of grabbing a chunk of Turkey and giving it to Armenia. We
have no ill will against Turkey. But we cannot change history. This
thing happened in 1915. We will continue to be friends."
Think of it this way: Say a new administration came up in Germany
and said, "We are deeply offended by the constant reminders of
the Holocaust, and if the United State ever again brings up the
Holocaust, we're going to walk out of NATO, send the ambassador back,
cut off trade, etc. We're going to do that unless you shut down
the Holocaust Museum in Washington." What would the U.S. government
do? The government would say, "I'm sorry, we're going to continue to
recognize the facts and we're not going to be bullied by anybody,
especially a country that is much less powerful than the United
States." And Germany's much more powerful than Turkey.
This is what they should have done with Turkey. But instead, to the
detriment of U.S. interests, they are always trying to appease,
trying to say "Yes, it was a tragedy but it was not genocide. We
can't pass this resolution." If you are always trying to appease,
and saying you're sorry whenever Turkey gets offended, once they see
that you're being soft and weak and not determined, then they start
being demanding. That's why last year when the resolution came up,
Turkey threatened to block delivery of military hardware going through
Turkey to Iraq. Now they've got you. Now you've allowed yourself
to be manipulated by a regime that's not only denying history but
threatening your interests.
Instead, you should show you are resolute. In 1981, when President
Reagan signed that proclamation, the Turkish government complained, and
there were negative articles in the Turkish press. Three days later,
and until now, it was completely forgotten. That's the position the
U.S. government should take. Many other countries have taken that
position, and for a while Turkey was mad at them, but to this day
they don't take the position that this or that country recognizes the
Armenian genocide and punish them for it. It's just finished. So if
you want realpolitik, just bite the bullet and get it over with.
Changing governments
Tim Cavanaugh: Do you see different attitudes from the Turkish
government, on this or any other issues, since the Islamist party
has been in power?
Harut Sassounian: I think the government in power now is much more
people-oriented, sympathetic in general to all sorts of minority
rights and human rights. That doesn't mean they're pro-Armenian by
a long shot. But that's a government that eventually could lead to
positive developments between Armenians and Turkey.
However, on the negative side, that government is under tremendous
internal pressure from the Turkish equivalent of neocons. The radical,
nationalist, and kemalist Turks are putting so much pressure on
Erdogan's government that Erdogan is not in position to take any
positive steps on this point.
However, since the new government has come into power in Armenia,
there has been an exchange of letters between Turkey and Armenia,
saying they're interested in establishing normal relations. So there
are early indications that possibly with new officials, this could
lead to something positive.
Harut Sassounian
PRIMARY SOURCE
April 24, 2008
LAT
Harut Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier and a leading
figure in the local Armenian-American community, visited the Times
this week to discuss relations with Turkey, genocide recognition and
other matters. Here are some highlights.
Giving a forum to the ATAA
Tim Cavanaugh: The Times recently put up a transcript of our meeting
with the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. You've indicated
that that's comparable to giving, says, skinheads a platform to deny
the Holocaust.
Could you expand on that?
Harut Sassounian: I fully respect freedom of expression -- after
all, I'm the publisher of the California Courier, so I understand
the mission and purpose of journalists and editors. However, I took
offense, and a lot of the people who contacted me were offended, that
this group could come in an not only have a meeting -- which is not a
problem, having a meeting with any group -- but then have their words
of denial put on the world wide web. Even with the best intentions
of educating and informing the community about their position, the
L.A. Times is becoming in indirect conduit for denial of genocide,
which is very offensive to us.
Tim Cavanaugh: Clearly anything I say on this is going to sound
defensive, but I would say there's news value in hearing these
people state their position. This is not a fringe group; it's a well
established organization.
Harut Sassounian: Well let me just say one thing about that and then
we can move on. Any group, no matter who they are, that denies any
genocide or holocaust, I can not with a clear conscience call them
a respectable group.
They lose respectability when they deny genocide.
Talking Turkey
Harut Sassounian: I avoid interfacing with Turkish officials, because
they're bound by their positions to propagate the official Turkish
line of denial. So there's no point in having any communication
with an official who can't say anything other than the government's
position. I've had wonderful conversations with individual Turkish
citizens, even when we may disagree.
I've had many offers to meet with consuls or ambassadors, but I turn
down all invitations because they know what I'm going to say and I know
what they're going to say, so there's no point offending each other.
Paul Thornton: But they would say they're inviting you to join them
in some kind of fact-finding mission that will determine the final
say in this -- even though historians agree...
Harut Sassounian: Yeah, as far as fact finding, I'm not the one who
needs fact-finding. So there's nothing for me to join. I welcome
and encourage Turkish, officials, scholars and journalists to do all
the fact finding they need. If they have questions, I'll be happy to
answer questions or direct them to sources. But I don't need to find
out what happened. I know what happened. My grandparents' families
on both sides were wiped out. So that's not something I read in a
book. I grew up with my grandfather and grandmother telling me the
hell they went through. It would be besmirching their good name to
join in some kind of fact finding. I know what happened.
Widespread recognition of the Armenian genocide
Tim Cavanaugh: My anecdotal impression is that there's pretty wide
acceptance of the reality of the Armenian genocide: popularly in the
United States, and maybe worldwide. I mean, a substantial number of
people in the world don't even know the Holocaust happened, so you're
never going to have total awareness, but there does seem to be pretty
wide recognition.
Harut Sassounian: That is a very correct impression. After all, if you
just look at what has taken place, it goes all the way back to 1915. So
it's not surprising that not many people know what happened. Most
people don't follow the news as closely as journalists. To that
effect the Holocaust is a more recent event, and it took place in the
center of Europe, where there were films and archives, and the Allies
filmed all the evidence in the death camps. With the Armenian genocide
there were some pictures, some films, but the memory is much dimmer,
because it's so far in the past.
However, your observation is correct. Scores of countries, parliaments,
have passed resolutions recognizing it as genocide. The U.S. Congress
itself, all the way back in 1916. There was a Senate resolution in
1920; more recently in 1975 the House passed a resolution recognizing
the genocide. In 1984 there was a second resolution. President Reagan
in 1981 signed a presidential proclamation saying "genocide." The
UN Sub-commission on Human Rights did a study and concluded it was
genocide. The European Parliament in 1987 passed a resolution. And
many others have since then. So at this point it's no longer what
we used to call the forgotten genocide or the hidden Holocaust. Most
people who know such things are aware of it.
Tim Cavanaugh: So what are you campaigning for now? I mean there was
this thing last year where Jane Harman disappointed a lot of people
locally. What would we be looking for now in terms of recognition?
Harut Sassounian: Let's dispose of Jane Harman before we get on to more
serious issues. Jane Harman's mistake was that she was a co-sponsor of
the genocide resolution; while remaining on record as the co-sponsor,
she wrote a letter to the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee asking that the resolution not be brought up for a vote. So
she was saying one thing openly and doing something else behind the
scenes. That's double-talk and dishonest in my book. If she'd come
out and said "I don't support this resolution" that would have been
something we could respond to. But instead she gives the impression
to the community: "I'm on your side, I support you.
But I'm going to work behind your back to undermine this resolution."
Coming back to the more serious issue, for several decades after 1915,
parts of various families survived the genocide. Some families were
completely wiped out, so there are no inheritors there. Others, like
my family, they married other survivors and formed new families. So
initially, they found themselves in the deserts of Syria, no housing,
no food, nothing. Completely in destitute shape. So what was on their
mind was getting a mud hut to live in and a piece of bread to eat. Over
time, they built churches, schools, a semblance of normal life. Then
people of the next generation started forming groups dedicated to
recognizing the injustice that was done to them. They would write
letters to government officials, which would get ignored.
When my generation came along, we were the first to get educated,
know foreign languages, understand the ways of politics. It was this
generation that began to get some recognition of the genocide. Little
by little, as things began to change, the Turkish government started
to react, started saying there's no such thing, just ridiculed it. But
as the world began to accept this, the Turkish government started
putting serious money and effort behind the denial. So they brought
in hundreds of Turkish and non-Turkish scholars, hired lobbying firms.
But now the genocide is an established fact. So we're not clamoring
anymore about the world ignoring us. And the L.A. Times is the best
example of that.
The paper is on record recognizing the genocide. So are the New York
Times and the Boston Globe. Even recently, Time magazine issued a
statement recognizing it as genocide and saying it would be referred
to as such.
So now we're back to 1915. In 1915 there was a nation living on its
own ancestral homeland. They had been there long before there was a
Turkey. In addition to losing 1.5 million people, we were uprooted
from our homeland.
So what Armenians would like, and this is not a dream that can be
realized anytime in the near future, is justice. Everything was taken
from them: their lands, their churches, bank accounts, livestock,
homes, everything.
This was a gross injustice done to these people. Just asking for
recognition from the Turks, having them come and say "Yes, 90 or 100
years ago, your ancestors were wiped out," that doesn't do anything. We
already know we were wiped out.
So what we want, as a right, no matter how impossible the
implementation, as a right we demand justice for the Armenian
people. For all the stuff that was taken from them we demand just
compensation. And that can take many forms. This is where Armenians
and Turks should sit down, and have a very lengthy and serious
discussion about what can be done, what's realistic and what's not,
what form it should take, whether it's realistic to demand land at
this point, whether it's realistic to make financial compensation,
as Germany did with survivors of the Holocaust... At least at the
surface level, Armenian churches, religious monuments in Turkey,
should be returned to the Armenian Church in Turkey. Not to the United
States or Armenia or some foreign entity. But for the few survivors
who live in Turkey still.
These are citizens of Turkey and these are their houses of worship. And
they have the right, under the Treaty of Lausanne, to worship there...
Court cases
Paul Thornton: What's preventing a case from being brought to the
international court right now?
Harut Sassounian: Nothing's really preventing anyone. There are
several practical issues. One is that Armenians for many decades were
trying to recover and establish the facts of the genocide, so they
weren't running to court. In recent years, lawyers filed against New
York Life, and got a $20 million settlement for people who had life
insurance policies. Now there are suits against several German banks,
to recover funds that Armenians deposited before the genocide. There
was also a large amount of money deposited in Ottoman Bank. And that
line still exists today. So at some point, Armenians are going to
go for their possessions, and go to the European courts with their
deeds of trust and demand that they get their possessions back.
The second answer is that the world court can only take cases brought
by governments. For many years there was no Armenian nation. So now
we have the Republic of Armenian, which is in desperate straits,
so they're not going to go and antagonize Turkey, which is a much
stronger neighbor. And the Diaspora has no standing to go into court.
This is not about wishful thinking. You have to go to international
experts and find out, for example, does a court now, in 2008, deal
with an event that took place 93 years ago? You have to look at
questions regarding the Genocide Convention of 1948, whether that has
any retroactive effect. Those are very complex legal issues. It's not
a matter of just civilians saying "I want this or that." Because the
worst thing that can happen to Armenians is, if they're not skilled
in legal issues, if they just go and file in court and the court
dismisses the case because it has no jurisdiction, then the next day
the Turkish propaganda machine will say, "The Armenians tried to file
a genocide claim but it was dismissed because it had no merit."
Realpolitik axis
Tim Cavanaugh: One of the things that really seems to make it tough
for these kinds of discussions is this axis in Washington D.C. of
realpolitik types who take the line that we can't do anything
to infuriate Turkey, that we need to have them on board, they're
important to Israel, and so forth.
What presence do you maintain in D.C.?
Harut Sassounian: We have a couple of small Armenian organizations
with small staffs, who try to defend Armenian interests and counter
the Turkish efforts.
But as for realpolitik, I studied international affairs and I was
a U.N.
delegate for ten years, so I know the reality of the world. And I know
many of the things we say run counter to realpolitik. But let's stay
at the level of realpolitik for a moment, and not get into issues of
justice or truth. If U.S. officials and Israeli officials, from day
one, or even now, would say to the Turkish republic: "We are allies,
we share common interests, we wouldn't want to do anything to hurt
you. But this is something that was done more than 90 years ago, by a
former regime that no longer exists. We cannot, because of friendship,
go against the truth. This is history. We're not talking about taking
action, of grabbing a chunk of Turkey and giving it to Armenia. We
have no ill will against Turkey. But we cannot change history. This
thing happened in 1915. We will continue to be friends."
Think of it this way: Say a new administration came up in Germany
and said, "We are deeply offended by the constant reminders of
the Holocaust, and if the United State ever again brings up the
Holocaust, we're going to walk out of NATO, send the ambassador back,
cut off trade, etc. We're going to do that unless you shut down
the Holocaust Museum in Washington." What would the U.S. government
do? The government would say, "I'm sorry, we're going to continue to
recognize the facts and we're not going to be bullied by anybody,
especially a country that is much less powerful than the United
States." And Germany's much more powerful than Turkey.
This is what they should have done with Turkey. But instead, to the
detriment of U.S. interests, they are always trying to appease,
trying to say "Yes, it was a tragedy but it was not genocide. We
can't pass this resolution." If you are always trying to appease,
and saying you're sorry whenever Turkey gets offended, once they see
that you're being soft and weak and not determined, then they start
being demanding. That's why last year when the resolution came up,
Turkey threatened to block delivery of military hardware going through
Turkey to Iraq. Now they've got you. Now you've allowed yourself
to be manipulated by a regime that's not only denying history but
threatening your interests.
Instead, you should show you are resolute. In 1981, when President
Reagan signed that proclamation, the Turkish government complained, and
there were negative articles in the Turkish press. Three days later,
and until now, it was completely forgotten. That's the position the
U.S. government should take. Many other countries have taken that
position, and for a while Turkey was mad at them, but to this day
they don't take the position that this or that country recognizes the
Armenian genocide and punish them for it. It's just finished. So if
you want realpolitik, just bite the bullet and get it over with.
Changing governments
Tim Cavanaugh: Do you see different attitudes from the Turkish
government, on this or any other issues, since the Islamist party
has been in power?
Harut Sassounian: I think the government in power now is much more
people-oriented, sympathetic in general to all sorts of minority
rights and human rights. That doesn't mean they're pro-Armenian by
a long shot. But that's a government that eventually could lead to
positive developments between Armenians and Turkey.
However, on the negative side, that government is under tremendous
internal pressure from the Turkish equivalent of neocons. The radical,
nationalist, and kemalist Turks are putting so much pressure on
Erdogan's government that Erdogan is not in position to take any
positive steps on this point.
However, since the new government has come into power in Armenia,
there has been an exchange of letters between Turkey and Armenia,
saying they're interested in establishing normal relations. So there
are early indications that possibly with new officials, this could
lead to something positive.