Tweet
Independent.co.uk
Against The Grain: The Armenian genocide - why Britain is at fault
Interview by Chris Green
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Scholarship on the Armenian genocide is dominated by two strands, both very
simplistic. One is the Turkish nationalist strand, which effectively tries
to deny that it occurred, and that the Armenians who died were only killed
as a direct result of their own treacherous behaviour. The second strand
comes from the Armenian diaspora, whose scholars argue that genocide did
occur: but their explanations for this are sometimes based on dubious
evidence and are often polemical. The truth transcends both. Genocide was a
policy choice made by a specific regime under specific conditions, not a
culturally determined crime.
No one knows exactly how many people were killed, but in the immediate
aftermath of the First World War at least 800,000 deaths were acknowledged
by the new Turkish nationalist leader Mustapha Kemal Atatürk. Of around two
million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1914, only 400,000 remained after
the war. So the question is: what happened to them all? We know they were
deported to harsh desert regions, and although some escaped to Arab states,
most were massacred on the way by Ottoman paramilitaries. Putting the death
toll at 200,000, as some Turkish nationalists do, is utterly untenable in
terms of simple mathematics. It was one of the most intensive killing
campaigns of the 20th century.
Yet both the USA and Britain still refuse to recognise it as genocide. They
accept that a lot of Armenians died during "tragic wartime events", but say
that the issue is best left to Turkey and Armenia. This is partly because a
lot of Turkish state funding goes into official denial campaigns. In
Britain, Holocaust Memorial Day assiduously tries to avoid mentioning the
Armenian genocide, as a direct result of Turkish state pressure. So, a day
supposedly dedicated to the commemoration of extreme events - to ensure that
they never happen again - can't even confront one of the major genocides of
the 20th century.
This is not just a matter for the history books. There's a direct line
between Turkey's failure to confront what happened to the Armenians and the
continuing persecution of Turkey's Kurds. Greater international pressure for
freedom of speech and human rights in Turkey is the best way to improve the
Kurdish situation. As for Britain, it should be wary of making grandiose but
easy moral gestures about humanitarian issues if it is going to crumble
under pressure. This isn't something that's going to go away.
Donald Bloxham's latest book, 'The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism,
Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians', is published by
Oxford University Press
Against The Grain: The Armenian genocide - why Britain is at fault
Interview by Chris Green
Thursday, 21 February 2008
Scholarship on the Armenian genocide is dominated by two strands, both very
simplistic. One is the Turkish nationalist strand, which effectively tries
to deny that it occurred, and that the Armenians who died were only killed
as a direct result of their own treacherous behaviour. The second strand
comes from the Armenian diaspora, whose scholars argue that genocide did
occur: but their explanations for this are sometimes based on dubious
evidence and are often polemical. The truth transcends both. Genocide was a
policy choice made by a specific regime under specific conditions, not a
culturally determined crime.
No one knows exactly how many people were killed, but in the immediate
aftermath of the First World War at least 800,000 deaths were acknowledged
by the new Turkish nationalist leader Mustapha Kemal Atatürk. Of around two
million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1914, only 400,000 remained after
the war. So the question is: what happened to them all? We know they were
deported to harsh desert regions, and although some escaped to Arab states,
most were massacred on the way by Ottoman paramilitaries. Putting the death
toll at 200,000, as some Turkish nationalists do, is utterly untenable in
terms of simple mathematics. It was one of the most intensive killing
campaigns of the 20th century.
Yet both the USA and Britain still refuse to recognise it as genocide. They
accept that a lot of Armenians died during "tragic wartime events", but say
that the issue is best left to Turkey and Armenia. This is partly because a
lot of Turkish state funding goes into official denial campaigns. In
Britain, Holocaust Memorial Day assiduously tries to avoid mentioning the
Armenian genocide, as a direct result of Turkish state pressure. So, a day
supposedly dedicated to the commemoration of extreme events - to ensure that
they never happen again - can't even confront one of the major genocides of
the 20th century.
This is not just a matter for the history books. There's a direct line
between Turkey's failure to confront what happened to the Armenians and the
continuing persecution of Turkey's Kurds. Greater international pressure for
freedom of speech and human rights in Turkey is the best way to improve the
Kurdish situation. As for Britain, it should be wary of making grandiose but
easy moral gestures about humanitarian issues if it is going to crumble
under pressure. This isn't something that's going to go away.
Donald Bloxham's latest book, 'The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism,
Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians', is published by
Oxford University Press