Tweet
RICHARD HOVANNISIAN: "A JOINT HISTORIANS' COMMISSION IS A DANGEROUS TRAP"
Tatul Hakobyan
www.reporter.am/go.cfm?path=/go/article/ 2009-05-02-richard-hovannisian-a-joint-historians- commission-is-a-dangerous-trap&pg=2
Saturday May 02, 2009
He would refuse to take part in an Armenian-Turkey commission
Yerevan - Historian Richard Hovannisian of the University of
California, Los Angeles, met with Tatul Hakobyan of the Armenian
Reporter on April 24 in Yerevan at the Armenian Center for National and
International Studies (ACNIS), a think tank established by Armenia's
first foreign minister, Raffi Hovannisian.
Tatul Hakobyan: Professor, in the early morning hours of April 23,
Armenia and Turkey, through Swiss mediation, issued an optimistic joint
statement announcing that they had charted a roadmap toward normalized
relations, and even though we don't know the content of the roadmap,
it has caused serious criticism, especially in the diaspora. The
reality is that it was signed on the eve of April 24. How would you
assess this?
Richard Hovannisian: It would have been good if the Armenian side had
found a way to wait until Sunday, April 26. Issuing the joint statement
on April 22, can clearly be tied with U.S. President Barack Obama's
address on April 24. It occurs to me that the sides, especially the
Armenian side, were under extreme pressure to give their consent to
that document, the road map. I don't know how the Armenian side was
forced or gave itself the right to sign, knowing full well that that
would have a negative impact on President Obama's statement.
Now, I can no longer hope that President Obama will clearly use the
word genocide. [This interview took place on April 24, but before the
president's statement was released.] President Obama could possibly
get close to the Genocide word, but it will be just as important for
him to say how many victims there were, that the Armenians and Turks
must find a dialogue, at the same time praise the Armenian people,
American-Armenians. A few days before April 24, Turkey's prime
minister once again stated that Armenian-Turkish relations could not
be successful as long as the Karabakh issue has not been resolved. I
must admit, that Erdogan's statements did not affect me adversely. I
believe that this can be a good incentive so that President Obama
will no longer have an excuse not to use the Genocide word.
We don't know the inside story; we don't know what role and influence
the United States and Russia had on the signing of the April 22
document. I can only assume that there was pressure both on Armenia
and Turkey - if you don't come to an agreement, then we are going to
recognize the Armenian Genocide. Otherwise I cannot understand why
Foreign Minister Nalbandian and President Sargsian agreed to sign
such a document on the evening of April 22.
TH: Can we say that Armenia knew that the date of issue was indeed
April 22, on the eve of April 24, and they went ahead and agreed to
the document?
RH: Certainly. He wasn't naïve, he knew. The question now is the
following - what will Armenia get in return? We don't know. If you are
really going to concede, then you better get something in return. I
do not know what Armenia will receive. We know that Turkish diplomacy
has always been flexible and shrewd; today they might come to an
agreement but then find an excuse by saying that the Armenians are
not willing to adopt a policy where they agree to concessions, we are
not guilty, the Armenians are guilty. The Turks are so flexible, that
while their prime minister will sign an agreement, their parliament
will not ratify it, and in this way prolong the issue.
TH: When the April 22 document was issued, many analysts expressed the
opinion that Armenian-Turkish dialogue had entered a stalemate. What
do you think?
RH: Israel and Palestine, in the past, have signed such documents. But
where are they now? Today, their relations are in much worse shape than
before. Signing any kind of document doesn't mean that you have reached
a certain level or that the borders will be opened tomorrow. Perhaps
the opening of the borders will bring more benefits to Turkey than
Armenia. Of course, open borders will also be beneficial for Armenia,
because we need access to the sea, toward the Western world; we will
then have an alternative to the Georgian routes. Open borders is
also good for Turkey, because its eastern regions will develop. It
is also good for the Turks because they will have access to expand
to the east; this pull will become easier. The Turks have always had
their eye on the east. In 1991, Turkey's politically and economically
motivated expansion into Central Asia, believing that they could be
the "godfather" in those countries, wasn't so easy. Realizing that
Turkey pulled out.
TH: In June 2008, President Serge Sargsian announced in Moscow that if
Turkey opens the border with Turkey, then the Armenian side would not
be opposed to the creation of a historians' commission, which Turkey's
prime minister had proposed to President Kocharian in 2005. Is this
proposal acceptable to you?
RH: It is acceptable only under certain conditions. First of all,
the Genocide must be accepted as a fact, then we can study as to why
the Genocide happened, what were the factors, etc. The Turks are
relying upon the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, where it states
that genocides must be premeditated. The Turks will stress that,
yes, there were Armenian victims - 200 thousand, 300 thousand, but
you cannot prove that this was premeditated.
Second of all, in their archives and at that time it was already
planned, to send telegrams from the villayets, where supposedly
Armenian revolts and desertion from the Ottoman army were
recorded. Turkish historians can come with these arguments and try,
at least in part, to place the blame on the Armenians. The Turkish
side will never accept that what happened was genocide. The creation
of such a commission is very dangerous.
TH: If they asked you to be on that commission, would you refuse?
RH: Yes, I would refuse, I wouldn't be part of that commission. What
is the Turkish side saying? It is saying let's form a commission,
let's see if the Genocide happened or not. We know that what happened
was genocide; the world accepts that it happened; the International
Association of Genocide Scholars accepts that it happened. In other
words, if we agree to the creation of a commission, then that will
be a step backward and will create doubt. I consider the commission
to be a dangerous trap, which I will not be a part of. For example
when they created Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, I was
opposed to it.
TH: But that committee had unexpected results.
RH: Yes, unexpected mixed achievements happened. The International
Center for Transitional Justice, to which TARC had applied, passed
a decision that what happened at the beginning of the century
was a genocide, but that the 1948 Convention on Genocide was not
retroactive. After that TARC fell apart. The historians representing
the Turkish side were putting forward a denialist approach within
TARC. The same will happen with this commission.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Tatul Hakobyan
www.reporter.am/go.cfm?path=/go/article/ 2009-05-02-richard-hovannisian-a-joint-historians- commission-is-a-dangerous-trap&pg=2
Saturday May 02, 2009
He would refuse to take part in an Armenian-Turkey commission
Yerevan - Historian Richard Hovannisian of the University of
California, Los Angeles, met with Tatul Hakobyan of the Armenian
Reporter on April 24 in Yerevan at the Armenian Center for National and
International Studies (ACNIS), a think tank established by Armenia's
first foreign minister, Raffi Hovannisian.
Tatul Hakobyan: Professor, in the early morning hours of April 23,
Armenia and Turkey, through Swiss mediation, issued an optimistic joint
statement announcing that they had charted a roadmap toward normalized
relations, and even though we don't know the content of the roadmap,
it has caused serious criticism, especially in the diaspora. The
reality is that it was signed on the eve of April 24. How would you
assess this?
Richard Hovannisian: It would have been good if the Armenian side had
found a way to wait until Sunday, April 26. Issuing the joint statement
on April 22, can clearly be tied with U.S. President Barack Obama's
address on April 24. It occurs to me that the sides, especially the
Armenian side, were under extreme pressure to give their consent to
that document, the road map. I don't know how the Armenian side was
forced or gave itself the right to sign, knowing full well that that
would have a negative impact on President Obama's statement.
Now, I can no longer hope that President Obama will clearly use the
word genocide. [This interview took place on April 24, but before the
president's statement was released.] President Obama could possibly
get close to the Genocide word, but it will be just as important for
him to say how many victims there were, that the Armenians and Turks
must find a dialogue, at the same time praise the Armenian people,
American-Armenians. A few days before April 24, Turkey's prime
minister once again stated that Armenian-Turkish relations could not
be successful as long as the Karabakh issue has not been resolved. I
must admit, that Erdogan's statements did not affect me adversely. I
believe that this can be a good incentive so that President Obama
will no longer have an excuse not to use the Genocide word.
We don't know the inside story; we don't know what role and influence
the United States and Russia had on the signing of the April 22
document. I can only assume that there was pressure both on Armenia
and Turkey - if you don't come to an agreement, then we are going to
recognize the Armenian Genocide. Otherwise I cannot understand why
Foreign Minister Nalbandian and President Sargsian agreed to sign
such a document on the evening of April 22.
TH: Can we say that Armenia knew that the date of issue was indeed
April 22, on the eve of April 24, and they went ahead and agreed to
the document?
RH: Certainly. He wasn't naïve, he knew. The question now is the
following - what will Armenia get in return? We don't know. If you are
really going to concede, then you better get something in return. I
do not know what Armenia will receive. We know that Turkish diplomacy
has always been flexible and shrewd; today they might come to an
agreement but then find an excuse by saying that the Armenians are
not willing to adopt a policy where they agree to concessions, we are
not guilty, the Armenians are guilty. The Turks are so flexible, that
while their prime minister will sign an agreement, their parliament
will not ratify it, and in this way prolong the issue.
TH: When the April 22 document was issued, many analysts expressed the
opinion that Armenian-Turkish dialogue had entered a stalemate. What
do you think?
RH: Israel and Palestine, in the past, have signed such documents. But
where are they now? Today, their relations are in much worse shape than
before. Signing any kind of document doesn't mean that you have reached
a certain level or that the borders will be opened tomorrow. Perhaps
the opening of the borders will bring more benefits to Turkey than
Armenia. Of course, open borders will also be beneficial for Armenia,
because we need access to the sea, toward the Western world; we will
then have an alternative to the Georgian routes. Open borders is
also good for Turkey, because its eastern regions will develop. It
is also good for the Turks because they will have access to expand
to the east; this pull will become easier. The Turks have always had
their eye on the east. In 1991, Turkey's politically and economically
motivated expansion into Central Asia, believing that they could be
the "godfather" in those countries, wasn't so easy. Realizing that
Turkey pulled out.
TH: In June 2008, President Serge Sargsian announced in Moscow that if
Turkey opens the border with Turkey, then the Armenian side would not
be opposed to the creation of a historians' commission, which Turkey's
prime minister had proposed to President Kocharian in 2005. Is this
proposal acceptable to you?
RH: It is acceptable only under certain conditions. First of all,
the Genocide must be accepted as a fact, then we can study as to why
the Genocide happened, what were the factors, etc. The Turks are
relying upon the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, where it states
that genocides must be premeditated. The Turks will stress that,
yes, there were Armenian victims - 200 thousand, 300 thousand, but
you cannot prove that this was premeditated.
Second of all, in their archives and at that time it was already
planned, to send telegrams from the villayets, where supposedly
Armenian revolts and desertion from the Ottoman army were
recorded. Turkish historians can come with these arguments and try,
at least in part, to place the blame on the Armenians. The Turkish
side will never accept that what happened was genocide. The creation
of such a commission is very dangerous.
TH: If they asked you to be on that commission, would you refuse?
RH: Yes, I would refuse, I wouldn't be part of that commission. What
is the Turkish side saying? It is saying let's form a commission,
let's see if the Genocide happened or not. We know that what happened
was genocide; the world accepts that it happened; the International
Association of Genocide Scholars accepts that it happened. In other
words, if we agree to the creation of a commission, then that will
be a step backward and will create doubt. I consider the commission
to be a dangerous trap, which I will not be a part of. For example
when they created Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission, I was
opposed to it.
TH: But that committee had unexpected results.
RH: Yes, unexpected mixed achievements happened. The International
Center for Transitional Justice, to which TARC had applied, passed
a decision that what happened at the beginning of the century
was a genocide, but that the 1948 Convention on Genocide was not
retroactive. After that TARC fell apart. The historians representing
the Turkish side were putting forward a denialist approach within
TARC. The same will happen with this commission.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress