Tweet
DICKRAN KOUYMJIAN: FOR DEMANDING COMPENSATIONS FROM TURKEY WE SHOULD COORDINATE OUR EFFORTS
17:25 06/06/2014 >> INTERVIEWS
Panorama.am presents an interview with Dr. Dickran Kouymjian, Haig &
Isabel Berberian Professor of Armenian Studies at Fresno University,
Emeritus. Dr. Kouymjian expresses his views on the question of
demanding reparations from Turkey, on the current policies of Armenia
and Turkey as well as on the question of the agendas of the Armenian
studies programs.
Dr. Kouymjian, in your articles on the Armenian Genocide you write
that the Armenian Republic and the Armenian Church should raise the
question of legal compensations from Turkey, with particular regard
to Armenian monuments and property. What is the best strategy that
Armenia should pursue to this end?
This is the question that I will be addressing at international
conference to be held in March 2015 in Paris to commemorate the
hundredth anniversary of the Genocide. The answer, as the answers
to all questions regarding the Armenian Genocide is complex and
susceptible to multi-response very different in kind. The best strategy
is one of coordination: Coordination between the Armenian Government
and the Diaspora where most of the descendants of the victims live,
but also coordination between the Armenian Church and its citizens when
it comes to matters of Church property, by which we mean buildings and
possessions related to religious element of Armenian life which are
the property of the Armenian people administered on consensus by the
Church. There has been such coordination, but it has been sporadic,
dispersed, and usually invisible. The work has to be separated into
individual domains--more thorough accumulation of inventories of
churches and other monuments that were affected; the constitution
of bodies of experts including jurists and historians that can help
articulate not only what the nation and survivors want, but they
should be asking for; expert in international affairs that can gage
the sometimes rapid changes in questions concerning indemnities for
genocide and crimes against humanity, because what might have been a
theoretical demand of a few decades ago, or instance recognition of the
genocide, may no longer be a vital requisite. These individual spheres
of thinking and activity, only a few of which I have cited above, would
then have to be coordinated in a dynamic manner susceptible to adapt
itself to a constantly shifting world and a regular re-examination of
nationals should demand of perpetrators. This kind of action requires
both a think-tank type of creativity as well as a concrete hands-on
accumulation of data. It is with this kind of solid survey of seize
and destroyed property and monuments and a positive strategy toward
attaining designated goals, even if changing, can be established.
What is your view regarding the policies of Armenia towards Turkey
on the eve of the Armenian genocide centennial (for instance the fact
that the President of Armenia has invited the President of Turkey to
Armenia to commemorate the Genocide in 2015)?
The Republic of Armenia has been trying to coordinate a general policy,
or course of action, with representatives of the diaspora and major
Armenian Church leaders. A committee was formed some years ago to this
effect; the task is difficult and whatever the outcome, there will be
successes and failures as well as praise (perhaps auto-satisfaction)
and criticism. It is difficult, at times impossible, to predict
the flow of events. The most optimistic thinkers of my generation
could have never imagined Armenian independence would be gained so
quickly after the slow demise of the Cold War, or could have in any
way predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. Even after 1991, none
of us predicted or could have predicted in those earlier years that
seemed to point to a new and revitalized Armenian nation, that in a
short time Armenia would be to a great extent guided by the wishes
of oligarchs, whose power seems to increase with time, as is the case
in other post-Soviet republics.
This situation has created a chasm between the world view of Armenians
leading the Republic and Armenians in the diaspora who see civil
responsibility differently and who have quite different views about
what a democratic state is or should be and about what the rights
and the obligations of citizens are, and that means all citizens
including elected governmental officials, leaders of the church
and other important institution, oligarchs, and not just the great
majority of the population, much of which still lives in sub-standard
conditions, often in poverty with no way of changing or escaping the
system except by leaving the country.
The invitation of President Sargsyan to the President of Turkey to
come to Armenia to commemorate the centenary of the Genocide puts
pressure on Turkish leadership, it seems to me at first glance,
because if Turkey accepts, it will constitute an automatic form
of acknowledgement and if it refuses the invitation it would be an
awkward response to what should appear to world public opinion as a
step as positive as Mr. Erdogan tries to make of his official sorrow
for the fate of Armenians in 1915.
What is your view of the policies pursued by Turkey towards Armenia
in the context of the Genocide centennial (for instance Turkish Prime
Minister offered "condolences" to the victims of 1915)? Do you think
there is a sort of change happening in Turkey or do you think it is
merely another propaganda ploy of the Turks on the eve of 2015?
The Turkish Prime Minister's statement, whatever its calculated purpose
is, was an unexpected event. However such decisions are often judged
in hindsight; we say that the rather hasty positive response to the
American sponsored Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC)
signed in Geneva in 2004 led nowhere, but gave the appearance that
Turkey was behaving reasonably.
As for the question of change happening in Turkey, yes, I believe as
anyone who has followed events in Turkey in the past two or three
years, since the assassination of Hrant Dink, that a new awareness
of what happened in 1915 to the Armenians is occurring at times very
rapidly, especially among young intellectuals. At times it goes faster
than we would have imagined, at other times it appears to be thwarted
by a very clever authoritarian state which commands enormous human
and financial resources.
Turkey also represents a very important commercial market; its
economy is still growing despite a recent slowing down. It would
be foolish not to be realistic, perhaps cynical is a better word,
about the amoral attitude of multinational corporations that care
little about democratic rights of the citizens of their own counties,
let alone of those countries they do business with. Many of the
leaders of countries and the heads of their large corporations
have no reservations or moral inhibitions when it comes to making
money in countries that are dictatorships or engage in practices in
theory unacceptable in their own environments. It would be naïve to
imagine that the major powers, including western democracies, have
any interests that supersede self-interest.
It should, however, be abundantly clear that a change in Turkey
toward the Genocide and the Armenian question in general is taking
place and will continue almost entirely from within. It will be
led as the Turks themselves are in part already driving it. There
are already close ties between these enlightened Turkish elites and
responsible and dedicated Armenians in both Armenia and the Diaspora;
these contacts must be strengthened and broadened and this can only
be done by working with Turks individually and collectively.
Dr. Kouymjian, you were the Director of the Armenian Studies Program
at Fresno State for many years. What activities is the program pursuing
now that you have retired?
In 2008 I formally retired as the first incumbent of the Haig and
Isabel Berberian Endowed Professorship of Armenian Studies and the
Director of the Armenian Studies Program at the Center for Armenian
Studies and definitively returned to my home in Paris. Upon my
retirement, my position was separate into two positions. The
new Director of the Program is Prof. Barlow Der Mugrdechian, my
former student and long time colleague, and as the second holder
of the Berberian Chair Prof. Sergio La Porta was chosen after an
international search. Together they are continuing the various
activities of the Program including a heavy teaching schedule,
enhancing it and broadening the outreach of Armenian Studies in the
University and in the Fresno community.
Dr. Kouymjian, you have recently published a book titled "Artsakh:
Garden of Armenian Arts and Traditions - Karabagh" (2012). To what
extent are the contemporary issues that Armenia is facing (such as for
instance the question of Nagorno-Karabakh) on the agenda of Armenian
chairs in the world, including the program in Fresno?
I did edit along with Prof. Claude Mutafian of Paris, a bilingual,
English and French, volume on the arts of Artsakh-Karabagh that has had
little circulation outside of France, with virtually no distribution
in Armenia or the United States. I hope a second printing will reach
a larger audience, because the essays by Patrick Donabedian, Francois
Djindjian, George Bournoutian, Claude Mutafian, and myself are of
the highest academic quality, with the latest theories in each of
the domains covered and with beautiful illustrations, but in a very
accessible language suitable for the any interested reader.
I am no longer one who can comment on the teaching of contemporary
issues concerning Armenia except to say in general that though the
matter is not ignored in the general courses in modern Armenian
history, current topics are presented to students and the public
through the Armenian Studies Program Lecture Series at Fresno open
to the students and the public at large. Important experts, sometimes
scholars, other times individuals influential in international affairs
and in conditions in Armenia as well as Turkey and the diaspora,
are invited to come to Fresno to speak. Also at the university, due
to an important endowment, we initiated the Henry Kazan Visiting
Professorship in Modern Armenian and Genocide Studies, by which a
distinguish scholar is chosen from among candidates to be in residence
on campus for one semester for a specific course on some aspect of the
Genocide and to offer three public lectures to the community around a
central topic. In general, Armenian studies programs have a curriculum
centered around history, language and literature, and at times Armenian
art. Those programs that specialized in the modern and contemporary
history of Armenia, such as UCLA, Berkeley, Boston University or
University of Michigan, both at Ann Arbor and the Dearborn campus,
are more likely to offer an occasional course on contemporary issues.
Armenian studies as it developed in Europe in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries was concentrated on ancient and medieval history,
philology and classical Armenian. This tradition is still very
important in both European universities and places like Harvard and
until recently Columbia. For modern studies in the U.S., but also in
Europe, the Genocide remains the focus and to a much lesser extent
contemporary geopolitical investigation.
Dr. Kouymjian, thank you very much for the interview.
By Nvard Chalikyan
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2014/06/06/kouymjian/
From: A. Papazian
17:25 06/06/2014 >> INTERVIEWS
Panorama.am presents an interview with Dr. Dickran Kouymjian, Haig &
Isabel Berberian Professor of Armenian Studies at Fresno University,
Emeritus. Dr. Kouymjian expresses his views on the question of
demanding reparations from Turkey, on the current policies of Armenia
and Turkey as well as on the question of the agendas of the Armenian
studies programs.
Dr. Kouymjian, in your articles on the Armenian Genocide you write
that the Armenian Republic and the Armenian Church should raise the
question of legal compensations from Turkey, with particular regard
to Armenian monuments and property. What is the best strategy that
Armenia should pursue to this end?
This is the question that I will be addressing at international
conference to be held in March 2015 in Paris to commemorate the
hundredth anniversary of the Genocide. The answer, as the answers
to all questions regarding the Armenian Genocide is complex and
susceptible to multi-response very different in kind. The best strategy
is one of coordination: Coordination between the Armenian Government
and the Diaspora where most of the descendants of the victims live,
but also coordination between the Armenian Church and its citizens when
it comes to matters of Church property, by which we mean buildings and
possessions related to religious element of Armenian life which are
the property of the Armenian people administered on consensus by the
Church. There has been such coordination, but it has been sporadic,
dispersed, and usually invisible. The work has to be separated into
individual domains--more thorough accumulation of inventories of
churches and other monuments that were affected; the constitution
of bodies of experts including jurists and historians that can help
articulate not only what the nation and survivors want, but they
should be asking for; expert in international affairs that can gage
the sometimes rapid changes in questions concerning indemnities for
genocide and crimes against humanity, because what might have been a
theoretical demand of a few decades ago, or instance recognition of the
genocide, may no longer be a vital requisite. These individual spheres
of thinking and activity, only a few of which I have cited above, would
then have to be coordinated in a dynamic manner susceptible to adapt
itself to a constantly shifting world and a regular re-examination of
nationals should demand of perpetrators. This kind of action requires
both a think-tank type of creativity as well as a concrete hands-on
accumulation of data. It is with this kind of solid survey of seize
and destroyed property and monuments and a positive strategy toward
attaining designated goals, even if changing, can be established.
What is your view regarding the policies of Armenia towards Turkey
on the eve of the Armenian genocide centennial (for instance the fact
that the President of Armenia has invited the President of Turkey to
Armenia to commemorate the Genocide in 2015)?
The Republic of Armenia has been trying to coordinate a general policy,
or course of action, with representatives of the diaspora and major
Armenian Church leaders. A committee was formed some years ago to this
effect; the task is difficult and whatever the outcome, there will be
successes and failures as well as praise (perhaps auto-satisfaction)
and criticism. It is difficult, at times impossible, to predict
the flow of events. The most optimistic thinkers of my generation
could have never imagined Armenian independence would be gained so
quickly after the slow demise of the Cold War, or could have in any
way predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. Even after 1991, none
of us predicted or could have predicted in those earlier years that
seemed to point to a new and revitalized Armenian nation, that in a
short time Armenia would be to a great extent guided by the wishes
of oligarchs, whose power seems to increase with time, as is the case
in other post-Soviet republics.
This situation has created a chasm between the world view of Armenians
leading the Republic and Armenians in the diaspora who see civil
responsibility differently and who have quite different views about
what a democratic state is or should be and about what the rights
and the obligations of citizens are, and that means all citizens
including elected governmental officials, leaders of the church
and other important institution, oligarchs, and not just the great
majority of the population, much of which still lives in sub-standard
conditions, often in poverty with no way of changing or escaping the
system except by leaving the country.
The invitation of President Sargsyan to the President of Turkey to
come to Armenia to commemorate the centenary of the Genocide puts
pressure on Turkish leadership, it seems to me at first glance,
because if Turkey accepts, it will constitute an automatic form
of acknowledgement and if it refuses the invitation it would be an
awkward response to what should appear to world public opinion as a
step as positive as Mr. Erdogan tries to make of his official sorrow
for the fate of Armenians in 1915.
What is your view of the policies pursued by Turkey towards Armenia
in the context of the Genocide centennial (for instance Turkish Prime
Minister offered "condolences" to the victims of 1915)? Do you think
there is a sort of change happening in Turkey or do you think it is
merely another propaganda ploy of the Turks on the eve of 2015?
The Turkish Prime Minister's statement, whatever its calculated purpose
is, was an unexpected event. However such decisions are often judged
in hindsight; we say that the rather hasty positive response to the
American sponsored Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC)
signed in Geneva in 2004 led nowhere, but gave the appearance that
Turkey was behaving reasonably.
As for the question of change happening in Turkey, yes, I believe as
anyone who has followed events in Turkey in the past two or three
years, since the assassination of Hrant Dink, that a new awareness
of what happened in 1915 to the Armenians is occurring at times very
rapidly, especially among young intellectuals. At times it goes faster
than we would have imagined, at other times it appears to be thwarted
by a very clever authoritarian state which commands enormous human
and financial resources.
Turkey also represents a very important commercial market; its
economy is still growing despite a recent slowing down. It would
be foolish not to be realistic, perhaps cynical is a better word,
about the amoral attitude of multinational corporations that care
little about democratic rights of the citizens of their own counties,
let alone of those countries they do business with. Many of the
leaders of countries and the heads of their large corporations
have no reservations or moral inhibitions when it comes to making
money in countries that are dictatorships or engage in practices in
theory unacceptable in their own environments. It would be naïve to
imagine that the major powers, including western democracies, have
any interests that supersede self-interest.
It should, however, be abundantly clear that a change in Turkey
toward the Genocide and the Armenian question in general is taking
place and will continue almost entirely from within. It will be
led as the Turks themselves are in part already driving it. There
are already close ties between these enlightened Turkish elites and
responsible and dedicated Armenians in both Armenia and the Diaspora;
these contacts must be strengthened and broadened and this can only
be done by working with Turks individually and collectively.
Dr. Kouymjian, you were the Director of the Armenian Studies Program
at Fresno State for many years. What activities is the program pursuing
now that you have retired?
In 2008 I formally retired as the first incumbent of the Haig and
Isabel Berberian Endowed Professorship of Armenian Studies and the
Director of the Armenian Studies Program at the Center for Armenian
Studies and definitively returned to my home in Paris. Upon my
retirement, my position was separate into two positions. The
new Director of the Program is Prof. Barlow Der Mugrdechian, my
former student and long time colleague, and as the second holder
of the Berberian Chair Prof. Sergio La Porta was chosen after an
international search. Together they are continuing the various
activities of the Program including a heavy teaching schedule,
enhancing it and broadening the outreach of Armenian Studies in the
University and in the Fresno community.
Dr. Kouymjian, you have recently published a book titled "Artsakh:
Garden of Armenian Arts and Traditions - Karabagh" (2012). To what
extent are the contemporary issues that Armenia is facing (such as for
instance the question of Nagorno-Karabakh) on the agenda of Armenian
chairs in the world, including the program in Fresno?
I did edit along with Prof. Claude Mutafian of Paris, a bilingual,
English and French, volume on the arts of Artsakh-Karabagh that has had
little circulation outside of France, with virtually no distribution
in Armenia or the United States. I hope a second printing will reach
a larger audience, because the essays by Patrick Donabedian, Francois
Djindjian, George Bournoutian, Claude Mutafian, and myself are of
the highest academic quality, with the latest theories in each of
the domains covered and with beautiful illustrations, but in a very
accessible language suitable for the any interested reader.
I am no longer one who can comment on the teaching of contemporary
issues concerning Armenia except to say in general that though the
matter is not ignored in the general courses in modern Armenian
history, current topics are presented to students and the public
through the Armenian Studies Program Lecture Series at Fresno open
to the students and the public at large. Important experts, sometimes
scholars, other times individuals influential in international affairs
and in conditions in Armenia as well as Turkey and the diaspora,
are invited to come to Fresno to speak. Also at the university, due
to an important endowment, we initiated the Henry Kazan Visiting
Professorship in Modern Armenian and Genocide Studies, by which a
distinguish scholar is chosen from among candidates to be in residence
on campus for one semester for a specific course on some aspect of the
Genocide and to offer three public lectures to the community around a
central topic. In general, Armenian studies programs have a curriculum
centered around history, language and literature, and at times Armenian
art. Those programs that specialized in the modern and contemporary
history of Armenia, such as UCLA, Berkeley, Boston University or
University of Michigan, both at Ann Arbor and the Dearborn campus,
are more likely to offer an occasional course on contemporary issues.
Armenian studies as it developed in Europe in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries was concentrated on ancient and medieval history,
philology and classical Armenian. This tradition is still very
important in both European universities and places like Harvard and
until recently Columbia. For modern studies in the U.S., but also in
Europe, the Genocide remains the focus and to a much lesser extent
contemporary geopolitical investigation.
Dr. Kouymjian, thank you very much for the interview.
By Nvard Chalikyan
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2014/06/06/kouymjian/
From: A. Papazian