Tweet
SYDNEY UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR CLARIFIES HIS INTERVIEW WITH TURKISH DAILY
ArmInfo
2009-02-04 10:39:00
ArmInfo. Sydney University Professor Armen Kakavyan clarifies to
ArmInfo his interview with Turkish Radikal Daily, which Turkish and
Azerbaijani media presented as 'an action of apologies by Armenian
intellectuals to Turkey.
He says 'I refer to media reports about an Armenian counter-apology
allegedly being prepared in response to an online petition launched
by Turkish intellectuals (see http://www.ozurdiliyoruz.com) in
December 2008.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the situation.
Together with some friends, I recently drafted a response to the
abovementioned Turkish apology with the intention of circulating it by
email for input and advice. This statement is a humanistic response
to the humanistic gesture by a group of Turkish intellectuals and
signatories. As stated in my interview with Radikal, the response is
nothing more than a draft for circulation and discussion. There is
a possibility that it could later be presented as a counter-petition
if there is enough interest.'
He emphasizes: 'the response is a personal initiative of mine, with
the input of some friends, and there is as yet no "group of Armenian
intellectuals" behind the response. There is as yet no decision about
producing a counter-apology or about the nature of any potential
counter-apology, due to concerns about "relative trivialisation"
and the possibility of such a counter-apology being manipulated or
misunderstood in the current environment'.
'On Saturday 31st January, the Turkish Daily Radikal found out about
the draft response and I accepted their invitation for an interview',
he says.
As regards his interview, A. Kakavyan says his answers were not
distorted.
However, the introduction by the editor and a big photo of Armenian
revolutionaries as well as highlighting of his own apology created
wrong impression.
'I am grateful that my responses to the journalist's questions were
mostly produced word-for-word. However, the Editor's Introduction
framed the article primarily in terms of an Armenian apology. It
did so by including a large photo of Armenian revolutionaries and
related caption; and highlighting my personal apology for human rights
violations committed by Armenians.
In addition, there seemed to be some confusion between my personal
apology and the draft response being prepared. However, the two were
in fact not connected. I would therefore like to provide some points
of clarification regarding the "apology" aspect of the interview:
1. I did offer a personal renunciation of, and apology for, crimes
committed by Armenians against innocent Turks. To me, this apology
reflects basic human morality. I stand by that apology, which stems
from my ethical beliefs and rejection of all forms of violence against
innocent civilians, as per international law.
2. However, I CLEARLY stated in my interview that any crimes committed
by Armenians "cannot compare to the attempted annihilation of an
entire nation : and one does not negate or trivialize the other."
3. I did not mention the specific era of the victims, i.e. "Ottoman"
versus "Turkish".
4. For the record, let me state categorically that I distinguish
between, on the one hand, legitimate and heroic acts of resistance
and self-defence by Armenian revolutionaries from the 1890s through
to the end of the Genocide, and, on the other hand, wanton acts of
terrorist violence against civilians (recognised by international law
as crimes against humanity). It is the latter for which I apologised.
5. The purpose of my apology was to illustrate my following point:
"If I were the Turkish state, I would see an apology as an excellent
way of restoring the dignity lost through decades of denial."
6. My personal apology had no relation to the draft response to the
Turkish apology that is currently being circulated for discussion.
7. I did not apologise on behalf of anyone except myself, as no one
could possibly offer an apology on behalf of someone else.
'Finally, and importantly, near the end of my interview with Radikal, I
wrote: "So, any Armenian response to the apology should be similar." In
saying this, I was referring to the fact that the Turkish apology did
not attempt to "address the question of definitions and political
explanations etc". I did not mean that it should match the Turkish
apology with an Armenian one.
In conclusion, the main purpose of my interview with Radikal was to
acknowledge the Turkish apology, to emphasise that this apology is
only a start, and to remind the Turkish reader that what is really
needed is an apology by the Turkish state, followed by corrective
action. I believe this point would not have been lost on the honest
and thorough reader', the professor says.
He also highlights that PanArmenian.Net rightly reported: ""During an
online discussion, Sydney University (sic.) professor Armen Gakavian
expressed an opinion which was later ascribed to the entire Armenian
community," Mr. Manoyan said."
However, the PanArmenian.net article unfortunately reproduced some of
Radikal's errors, namely, regarding the nature of my personal apology,
which I have already addressed. It also repeated Radikal's assertion
that Prof.
Denis Papazian was involved in the initiative, which is not
correct. Prof.
Papazian has at no stage been involved in this initiative and has never
expressed his support for it. I did not mention Prof. Papazian in my
interview, and I believe information about his alleged involvement
was taken from an inaccurate statement, made in good faith, in an
earlier edition of Radikal.
ArmInfo
2009-02-04 10:39:00
ArmInfo. Sydney University Professor Armen Kakavyan clarifies to
ArmInfo his interview with Turkish Radikal Daily, which Turkish and
Azerbaijani media presented as 'an action of apologies by Armenian
intellectuals to Turkey.
He says 'I refer to media reports about an Armenian counter-apology
allegedly being prepared in response to an online petition launched
by Turkish intellectuals (see http://www.ozurdiliyoruz.com) in
December 2008.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the situation.
Together with some friends, I recently drafted a response to the
abovementioned Turkish apology with the intention of circulating it by
email for input and advice. This statement is a humanistic response
to the humanistic gesture by a group of Turkish intellectuals and
signatories. As stated in my interview with Radikal, the response is
nothing more than a draft for circulation and discussion. There is
a possibility that it could later be presented as a counter-petition
if there is enough interest.'
He emphasizes: 'the response is a personal initiative of mine, with
the input of some friends, and there is as yet no "group of Armenian
intellectuals" behind the response. There is as yet no decision about
producing a counter-apology or about the nature of any potential
counter-apology, due to concerns about "relative trivialisation"
and the possibility of such a counter-apology being manipulated or
misunderstood in the current environment'.
'On Saturday 31st January, the Turkish Daily Radikal found out about
the draft response and I accepted their invitation for an interview',
he says.
As regards his interview, A. Kakavyan says his answers were not
distorted.
However, the introduction by the editor and a big photo of Armenian
revolutionaries as well as highlighting of his own apology created
wrong impression.
'I am grateful that my responses to the journalist's questions were
mostly produced word-for-word. However, the Editor's Introduction
framed the article primarily in terms of an Armenian apology. It
did so by including a large photo of Armenian revolutionaries and
related caption; and highlighting my personal apology for human rights
violations committed by Armenians.
In addition, there seemed to be some confusion between my personal
apology and the draft response being prepared. However, the two were
in fact not connected. I would therefore like to provide some points
of clarification regarding the "apology" aspect of the interview:
1. I did offer a personal renunciation of, and apology for, crimes
committed by Armenians against innocent Turks. To me, this apology
reflects basic human morality. I stand by that apology, which stems
from my ethical beliefs and rejection of all forms of violence against
innocent civilians, as per international law.
2. However, I CLEARLY stated in my interview that any crimes committed
by Armenians "cannot compare to the attempted annihilation of an
entire nation : and one does not negate or trivialize the other."
3. I did not mention the specific era of the victims, i.e. "Ottoman"
versus "Turkish".
4. For the record, let me state categorically that I distinguish
between, on the one hand, legitimate and heroic acts of resistance
and self-defence by Armenian revolutionaries from the 1890s through
to the end of the Genocide, and, on the other hand, wanton acts of
terrorist violence against civilians (recognised by international law
as crimes against humanity). It is the latter for which I apologised.
5. The purpose of my apology was to illustrate my following point:
"If I were the Turkish state, I would see an apology as an excellent
way of restoring the dignity lost through decades of denial."
6. My personal apology had no relation to the draft response to the
Turkish apology that is currently being circulated for discussion.
7. I did not apologise on behalf of anyone except myself, as no one
could possibly offer an apology on behalf of someone else.
'Finally, and importantly, near the end of my interview with Radikal, I
wrote: "So, any Armenian response to the apology should be similar." In
saying this, I was referring to the fact that the Turkish apology did
not attempt to "address the question of definitions and political
explanations etc". I did not mean that it should match the Turkish
apology with an Armenian one.
In conclusion, the main purpose of my interview with Radikal was to
acknowledge the Turkish apology, to emphasise that this apology is
only a start, and to remind the Turkish reader that what is really
needed is an apology by the Turkish state, followed by corrective
action. I believe this point would not have been lost on the honest
and thorough reader', the professor says.
He also highlights that PanArmenian.Net rightly reported: ""During an
online discussion, Sydney University (sic.) professor Armen Gakavian
expressed an opinion which was later ascribed to the entire Armenian
community," Mr. Manoyan said."
However, the PanArmenian.net article unfortunately reproduced some of
Radikal's errors, namely, regarding the nature of my personal apology,
which I have already addressed. It also repeated Radikal's assertion
that Prof.
Denis Papazian was involved in the initiative, which is not
correct. Prof.
Papazian has at no stage been involved in this initiative and has never
expressed his support for it. I did not mention Prof. Papazian in my
interview, and I believe information about his alleged involvement
was taken from an inaccurate statement, made in good faith, in an
earlier edition of Radikal.