Tweet
OPEN LETTER TO PRES. SARGSYAN FROM CHAIRMAN OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ZORYAN INSTITUTE PROF. ROGER W. SMITH
AZG DAILY
06-10-2009
Armenian Genocide
Yours respectfully,Roger W. Smith, Chair, Academic Board of Directors
Dear President Sargsyan:
The Protocols for establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia
and Turkey, although intended to help normalize relations between the
two countries, raise serious questions about the process, and contain
pitfalls, which I have set out below for your kind consideration.
My interest in the Protocols arises from being a scholar of genocide
studies for most of my career, a founder of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, Chairman of the Academic Board of
Directors of the Zoryan Institute, and a recipient of the Movses
Khorenatsi Medal last year, awarded by you, Mr. President, for my
"considerable contribution to the international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide."
I and other scholars, who have no personal, ethnic or political
motive for affirming the Armenian Genocide, feel we must point
out one significant aspect of the Protocols, the clauses that call
for a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore
mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records and archives to
define existing problems and formulate recommendations and the
establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which
shall comprise subcommissions for the prompt implementation of the
commitments mentioned in operations paragraph 2 above in this Protocol.
Does "the historical dimension" article refer to the Armenian Genocide,
and does the "intergovernmental bilateral commission" article refer
to a historical commission? If not, then how can Armenia hope to have
normal relations with Turkey while ignoring a major cause of the
tension between the two countries? If so, then they are a source
of grave concern, because there is a broad ensus that genocide
unquestionably occurred in the case of the Armenians.
You are well aware, Mr. President, that numerous distinguished
historians, political scientists, sociologists, legal scholars, and
authoritative institutions around the world have investigated the
Genocide many times over, issued academic publications, and even made
public declarations. These scholars have devoted their professional
lives to conducting scientific research with the highest levels of
academic integrity. As a result of their work, scholars have identified
the Armenian Genocide as the archetypal case of modern genocide,
whose pattern has many similarities with subsequent cases. Therefore,
any commission that purports now to conduct "an impartial scientific
examination of the historical records and archives" in effect dismisses
all of the extensive research that has already been conducted for
decades and implies that none of it was impartial or scientific. This
is offensive to all genocide scholars, but particularly non-Armenian
scholars, who feel their work is now being truly politicized.
I am sure you can appreciate that they have no confidence that a
politically organized commission would not compromise historical
truth, especially considering the imbalanced power relations between
Armenia and Turkey. This assessment is particularly exacerbated when
one considers the following:
1. The national archives of France, Great Britain, and the United
States, as well as Turkey and its wartime allies Germany and Austria,
to name only a few, are full of incontestable documentation of the
genocidal intent and nature of the annihilation of the Armenians.
2. The historical records of the official investigation by a Turkish
military Tribunal in post-war Turkey, recently published, based
on authenticated, official Turkish documents, found irrefutable
evidence of centrally organized mass murder against the bulk of the
Ottoman Empire's own Armenian citizens. The prosecutors were Turks,
the judges were Turks, and most of the witnesses were Turks, including
high ranking military officers.
3. The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), reviewing
the Armenian case for the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission
(TARC), concluded that "the Events, viewed collectively, can thus
be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as
defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians,
politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in
continuing to so describe them."
4. Prime Minister Erdogan has stated repeatedly that Turkey would
never accept there was an Armenian Genocide, and even if a historical
commission found that the Armenian case is genocide, it is argued,
Turkey would just ignore the decision, as it did the report of the
ICTJ, which led to the resignation of all the Turkish members of TARC.
But most importantly, Mr. President, the scholars are concerned
that a historical commission would embolden those who would consider
perpetrating genocide in future years by showing how easily genocide
can be y by the powerful.
In 2001, the Zoryan Institute issued a rare public commentary about
Turkish-Armenian relations, in which it stated
Normally, dialogue is the first step towards the possible resolution
of any conflict, and therefore reconciliation. The participants
in a dialogue generally need to define the key issues which divide
the parties and establish a process by which the dialogue will be
conducted. There must be a sincere desire for mutual understanding
and willingness to accept the factual issues in contention, even if
emotionally highly charged....
Turkey does not have the capacity to enter into a process of dialogue
to define the key issue of the
Genocide. Even if genocide were to be affirmed by "an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records and archives,"
Turkey would not be able to accept this, as it is currently bound by
a strict penal code that makes it illegal for anyone from Turkey to
even mention the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, was the negotiation of
the protocols, so long in the making, done all this time in bad faith?
If not, then perhaps what is required is a modification of the
wording in the Protocol referring to the "historical dimension," or a
modification of the Turkish penal code, which currently criminalizes
discussion of this subject, to make the Protocols viable.
If such modifications are not possible due to diplomatic pressures
at this time, then perhaps it would be prudent to stage the process
so that discussion of the "historical dimension" is deferred. This
would allow the people of both countries, but especially Turkey, the
opportunity to demonstrate "a sincere desire for mutual understanding
and willingness to accept the factual issues in contention, even
if emotionally highly charged." In the meantime, Turkey and Armenia
could proceed with the establishment of a diplomatic exchange, which,
in itself, would be a major step towards reconciliation.
AZG DAILY
06-10-2009
Armenian Genocide
Yours respectfully,Roger W. Smith, Chair, Academic Board of Directors
Dear President Sargsyan:
The Protocols for establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia
and Turkey, although intended to help normalize relations between the
two countries, raise serious questions about the process, and contain
pitfalls, which I have set out below for your kind consideration.
My interest in the Protocols arises from being a scholar of genocide
studies for most of my career, a founder of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, Chairman of the Academic Board of
Directors of the Zoryan Institute, and a recipient of the Movses
Khorenatsi Medal last year, awarded by you, Mr. President, for my
"considerable contribution to the international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide."
I and other scholars, who have no personal, ethnic or political
motive for affirming the Armenian Genocide, feel we must point
out one significant aspect of the Protocols, the clauses that call
for a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore
mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records and archives to
define existing problems and formulate recommendations and the
establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which
shall comprise subcommissions for the prompt implementation of the
commitments mentioned in operations paragraph 2 above in this Protocol.
Does "the historical dimension" article refer to the Armenian Genocide,
and does the "intergovernmental bilateral commission" article refer
to a historical commission? If not, then how can Armenia hope to have
normal relations with Turkey while ignoring a major cause of the
tension between the two countries? If so, then they are a source
of grave concern, because there is a broad ensus that genocide
unquestionably occurred in the case of the Armenians.
You are well aware, Mr. President, that numerous distinguished
historians, political scientists, sociologists, legal scholars, and
authoritative institutions around the world have investigated the
Genocide many times over, issued academic publications, and even made
public declarations. These scholars have devoted their professional
lives to conducting scientific research with the highest levels of
academic integrity. As a result of their work, scholars have identified
the Armenian Genocide as the archetypal case of modern genocide,
whose pattern has many similarities with subsequent cases. Therefore,
any commission that purports now to conduct "an impartial scientific
examination of the historical records and archives" in effect dismisses
all of the extensive research that has already been conducted for
decades and implies that none of it was impartial or scientific. This
is offensive to all genocide scholars, but particularly non-Armenian
scholars, who feel their work is now being truly politicized.
I am sure you can appreciate that they have no confidence that a
politically organized commission would not compromise historical
truth, especially considering the imbalanced power relations between
Armenia and Turkey. This assessment is particularly exacerbated when
one considers the following:
1. The national archives of France, Great Britain, and the United
States, as well as Turkey and its wartime allies Germany and Austria,
to name only a few, are full of incontestable documentation of the
genocidal intent and nature of the annihilation of the Armenians.
2. The historical records of the official investigation by a Turkish
military Tribunal in post-war Turkey, recently published, based
on authenticated, official Turkish documents, found irrefutable
evidence of centrally organized mass murder against the bulk of the
Ottoman Empire's own Armenian citizens. The prosecutors were Turks,
the judges were Turks, and most of the witnesses were Turks, including
high ranking military officers.
3. The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), reviewing
the Armenian case for the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission
(TARC), concluded that "the Events, viewed collectively, can thus
be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as
defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians,
politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in
continuing to so describe them."
4. Prime Minister Erdogan has stated repeatedly that Turkey would
never accept there was an Armenian Genocide, and even if a historical
commission found that the Armenian case is genocide, it is argued,
Turkey would just ignore the decision, as it did the report of the
ICTJ, which led to the resignation of all the Turkish members of TARC.
But most importantly, Mr. President, the scholars are concerned
that a historical commission would embolden those who would consider
perpetrating genocide in future years by showing how easily genocide
can be y by the powerful.
In 2001, the Zoryan Institute issued a rare public commentary about
Turkish-Armenian relations, in which it stated
Normally, dialogue is the first step towards the possible resolution
of any conflict, and therefore reconciliation. The participants
in a dialogue generally need to define the key issues which divide
the parties and establish a process by which the dialogue will be
conducted. There must be a sincere desire for mutual understanding
and willingness to accept the factual issues in contention, even if
emotionally highly charged....
Turkey does not have the capacity to enter into a process of dialogue
to define the key issue of the
Genocide. Even if genocide were to be affirmed by "an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records and archives,"
Turkey would not be able to accept this, as it is currently bound by
a strict penal code that makes it illegal for anyone from Turkey to
even mention the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, was the negotiation of
the protocols, so long in the making, done all this time in bad faith?
If not, then perhaps what is required is a modification of the
wording in the Protocol referring to the "historical dimension," or a
modification of the Turkish penal code, which currently criminalizes
discussion of this subject, to make the Protocols viable.
If such modifications are not possible due to diplomatic pressures
at this time, then perhaps it would be prudent to stage the process
so that discussion of the "historical dimension" is deferred. This
would allow the people of both countries, but especially Turkey, the
opportunity to demonstrate "a sincere desire for mutual understanding
and willingness to accept the factual issues in contention, even
if emotionally highly charged." In the meantime, Turkey and Armenia
could proceed with the establishment of a diplomatic exchange, which,
in itself, would be a major step towards reconciliation.