Below is Ara Arabyan’s translation of retired Turkish diplomat Volkan Vural’s interview with Taraf  (Sep 8, 2008), where the former Ambassador says Turkey must apologize to Armenians.

“[Duzel] In response to an invitation by the president of Armenia, President Abdullah Gul went to Yerevan to watch the soccer game [between the Turkish and Armenian national teams].  We have a dispute with Armenia over historical events.  Was not the Armenian president’s invitation to Gul before the resolution of this dispute a political risk for himself?

[Vural] Of course it was a risk.  The decision to invite the Turkish president to the soccer game was not an easy decision for Armenia.  We view the world solely through our own lens.  We must also look at events from the perspective of others.  There is a neurosis about Turkey in Armenia.  Consequently, it is not easy to make any decision related to Turkey.  Politicians may have to pay–indeed have paid–a high price for such decisions.

[Duzel] Who paid such a high price?

[Vural] Former President Levon Ter Petrosyan was ousted from office because he sought a solution to the Karabakh problem and to establish ties with Turkey.  They made him pay the price of establishing ties with Turkey.  Today, even though a major portion of the people of Armenia want relations [with Turkey] to develop and the borders [between the two countries] to open–the Turkey dossier is not so easy to handle as it is thought.

[Duzel] Is it easy to handle the Armenia dossier in Turkey?

[Vural] It is also difficult in Turkey.  However, the reality is that the problem between us and Armenia is not something that can be resolved by historians alone.  That is because this is psychological and political issue rather than a historical matter.  There is a certain psychology, distrust, fear, and terror that the events of the past have created among people.

[Duzel] Do you not think that Armenian and Turkish historians can solve this problem if they discuss the events of the past freely and describe them objectively?

[Vural] A solution to this problem cannot be found via history alone, because a solution requires overcoming the psychological problems this issue has created among people.  A solution requires the creation of a climate of trust in which the two peoples can draw closer with affection and respect and where they can talk to each other with ease.  This is not a situation that historians can overcome.  The Armenian question is a problem that needs to solved by politicians, not historians.  History can only shed light on certain issues and play a role that facilitates a solution.  That is all.

[Duzel] Do you think that any diplomatic steps will be taken in the aftermath of the [Turkish] president’s visit to Armenia?

[Vural] I expect and hope that they will be taken.  This visit may serve as the foundation of a new beginning between Turkey and Armenia.  Diplomatic relations between the two states must be established without delay.

[Duzel] What do you mean by “diplomatic relations”?

[Vural] “Diplomatic relations” means Turkish diplomats are resident in Yerevan and Armenian diplomats are resident in Ankara.  This would mean a normal relationship between the two states, which would mean the opening of borders between them.  The first step in the normalization of relations must be the exchange of representative missions in the two countries.  We have to sign an agreement and say that “we will exchange embassies with each other.”  The opening of the borders is not a necessity just for the Armenians.  I have seen that border gate.

[Duzel] What did you see?

[Vural] I went to the Alican [Margara] border gate [from the Armenian side].  I waved to our soldiers from afar.  This gate is 10 to 15 kilometers away from Yerevan.  Look, we have been in contact with Armenia, which gained independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, since 1991.

[Duzel] How so?

[Vural] For example, I am the first Turkish ambassador who visited Armenia.  At that time I was [Turkish] ambassador to Moscow.  This was the time when Armenia was on its way to becoming independent.  Shnork Kalustian, then the Armenian patriarch in Turkey, had died during his visit to Yerevan.  I sent a message to the Armenian president.  I wrote in my message that “taking an interest in the funeral of the patriarch, who is our citizen, and facilitating the return of his remains to Turkey is my duty” and that “I am prepared to contribute in every way, including attending any ceremonies that may be held.”

[Duzel] Did you do this in consultation with Ankara?

[Vural] No, I did it at my own initiative, because the patriarch was a Turkish citizen.  He was the spiritual leader of one of our religious minorities.  There was no relationship whatsoever between Armenia and Turkey.  At that time, Armenia was one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union.  As Turkish ambassador to Moscow, it fell within my purview like the other Soviet republics.  [Kalustyan's] funeral rites were conducted in the Armenian church in Moscow.  I attended that ceremony to the astonishment of the Armenians who were there.  They were really taken aback by the presence of a Turkish ambassador at a funeral ceremony in an Armenian church.  This was my first contact with Armenia as ambassador.

[Duzel] Did these contacts with Armenia continue?  If they did, how did they go?

[Vural] The contacts continued.  They invited me to Armenia on a winter day.  Ter Petrosyan was president.  Armenia was in dramatic conditions.  It was suffering tremendous deprivations, including the lack of any electricity.  I had a long and very useful meeting with President Ter Petrosyan about ways of developing Turkish-Armenian relations and dissipating hostility between the two nations.  Ter Petrosyan shared my views.

[Duzel] What did Ter Petrosyan, who is the leader of the main opposition party today, tell you

[Vural] He said:  “I cannot forget the agony of the past, but I do not want to be stuck in the past.  As a responsible statesman, I have to think about the future of my grandchildren.  I sincerely want the development of relations with Turkey.”  At that time, Turkey was perturbed by developments such as Armenia’s new constitution and declaration of independence.

[Duzel] Do certain expressions in the Armenian constitution and its declaration of independence still annoy Turkey?

[Vural] They still annoy Turkey.  However, Ter Petrosyan gave me the impression that these issues can be overcome and I conveyed this situation to Ankara in a lengthy report.  Subsequently, republics seceding from the Soviet Union declared their independence.  At that point, I returned to Ankara and all this information was evaluated.

[Duzel] Yes.

[Vural] During those meetings, it was decided that Turkey should recognize the independence of all the republics and that it should establish diplomatic ties with all of them except Armenia.  Unfortunately, Turkey did not establish diplomatic ties with Armenia.  This is a period that I have always seen as “lost years” for Turkey and that I have found most regrettable.   This is the year 1991 and immediately after that.  By 1993, matters were completely out of control, and Armenia occupied Nagorno Karabakh.

[Duzel] Had diplomatic relations with Armenia been established then, what would be happening now?  Would the Armenian question have been resolved?

[Vural] There would still be an Armenian question in Turkey, but Turkey would be a country that has normalized its relations with Armenia.  Both sides would have benefited from this normalization.  In other words, we would have had a different evolution and a different game, and this would have had an effect on the Diaspora Armenians.  However, we could not create this equilibrium like a great power.  I also think that this normalization would have helped to improve ties between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  The occupation of Nagorno Karabakh could perhaps be prevented.  However, we did not pay the necessary attention to Ter Petrosyan then; we failed to help him and to seize the moment.  Later, Ter Petrosyan was ousted and [Robert] Kocharian became president.  Kocharian pursued radical policies of Armenian nationalism.  Had we helped Ter Petrosyan to alleviate the deprivations in his country, nationalism in Armenia might not have been so rabid.

[Duzel] At that time [Turgut] Ozal was president and [Suleyman] Demirel was prime minister of a True Path Party-Social Democratic People’s Party coalition.  Who opposed the establishment of diplomatic ties with Armenia?  Was it the bureaucrats or the politicians?

[Vural] Many people within the bureaucracy of the Foreign Ministry opposed this.  Ozal was very upset that this opportunity was missed.  The [Armenian] declaration of independence naturally made many references to western Armenia–that is Turkish soil–and pledged efforts to win recognition for the genocide.  That gave the impression that Armenia has territorial claims on Turkey.  All these could have been overcome with the establishment of diplomatic relations.  I already had prepared some proposals to change the declaration of independence.  However, there was opposition to this at the time.

[Duzel] Why was there opposition?

[Vural] I see that as a lack of courage.  I reported my meeting with Ter Petrosyan but [ellipsis].  Had we established diplomatic relations, Turkey would not be in the tight corner it is now across the world over the Armenian question.  It would not have been so easy to condemn a Turkey that maintains very good relations with Armenia.  We should not be too preoccupied with the matter of genocide on this issue.

[Duzel] So what must we do?

[Vural] We are an important country of this region.  Peace and stability in this region is to our advantage.  From a wider perspective, the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia are very important in terms of the interests of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia.  When I say “we should not be too preoccupied with allegations of genocide,” I mean the following:  Allegations of genocide have become a vehicle of survival for the Diaspora.  The allegation of genocide has become an industry; it has created its own people, entrepreneurs, politicians, artists, and money mechanisms.

[Duzel] Has not Turkey become too obsessed with genocide by not establishing relations with Armenia?

[Vural] In effect, yes.  The development of relations between Turkey and Armenia would not entirely push aside allegations of genocide but [ellipsis].  Ter Petrosyan once pointed at the Alican border gate and told me:  “Look, if this gate is opened, people will see and know each other; they will commingle with each other.  We will end up buying many things we need from you.  This will help the resolution of the problems of the past.”  However, we have a strange reticence.  We are a country with too many red lines and taboos.  We are told that “Armenia is hostile to us” and that “it has territorial claims on Turkey.”  It is time to distinguish between rhetoric and the realities of life.

[Duzel] What are the realities of life?

[Vural] People may say, demand, and dream certain things rhetorically.  They may dream about a very large Armenia.  There is no limit to dreaming.  However, the realities are evident.  Can Armenia take any land from Turkey?  Which sensible person can contemplate that?  The number of soldiers in our armed forces is as big as the entire population of Armenia.  We must have more confidence in ourselves.

[Duzel] The man in the street may harbor fears or may be made to harbor fears, but how do you explain the phobias and red lines of military and civilian bureaucrats who know the realities?

[Vural] This is Turkey.  The Foreign Ministry is cautious, as expected.  Acting with extreme caution is a rule of that profession, but no problem can be solved without taking any risks.  This also partly reflects a desire to avoid the risk of being criticized by the Turkish public.  The entire problem is this:  There is a certain circumstance and you can either become the slave of that circumstance or find ways of changing it.  We became a slave of the circumstances.

[Duzel] Turkey became a slave of the Armenian question.

[Vural] Yes.  We should have sought another equation to solve this issue, but the risk was not taken out of fears of making mistakes and facing criticism at home.  As a result, we reduced ourselves to the point of doing nothing.

[Duzel] As diplomatic relations develop with Armenia, will the events of the past be discussed?

[Vural] They will be discussed inevitably.  In my opinion, this is not an impediment blocking the normalization of relations.  The term “genocide” is a descriptor that was created long after our historic events.  However, this descriptor has become largely banal today.  Every inhuman act is termed “genocide” at some point.  There is little doubt that the events we went through had very painful and tragic aspects.  There is also little doubt that the Armenians see them as a tremendous act of injustice against them.  It is fact that they think that they were forcefully uprooted from the places where they were born and raised.  You cannot erase those sentiments.  You cannot tell them not to think this way.  Nonetheless, you can tell them:  “Yes, these events occurred, but we cannot spend our lives on those events.  We have another life ahead of us.  Let us build that life together in friendship.”

[Duzel] Does Armenia really expect only this little from Turkey in connection with history?  Is it enough to say these to them to establish peace?

[Vural] The Armenians will of course stir up the issue of genocide.  They will seek ways of doing that.  There will always be movements to make the entire world accept this position.  In the meantime, the establishment of a “joint history commmission” between the two countries may, at first glance, be a good step forward, but I think that Armenia is not in a position to make a significant contribution with respect to history.  In my opinion, the problem is not in history.  I do not share the assumption that the historical facts are not known.  The facts are known.  Very many things are known.  The whole problem is how these known facts are perceived, what marks they have left, and how those marks can affect the future.

[Duzel] I did not understand.

[Vural] An Armenian may sincerely think that what happened to his nation was genocide.  We may think otherwise.  If we get stuck on this, we cannot get anywhere.  Arguing that “the historians should clarify this to us” means giving too much importance to historians.  Every historian has a different interpretation of every event.  The problem revolves around how the psychological problem will be overcome.  Ter Petrosyan told me:  “Let us put that issue to one side.  Let us look at the future.  It is obvious that we will not reach an agreement on this issue.  We should allow the two peoples to commingle by other means.  Let us bypass the genocide issue this way.”  I also think that this is what needs to be done.  There is no point in delving too much into this issue.

[Duzel] There is a very large Armenian Diaspora, mainly in the United States and France.  Will they not insist on the recognition of the genocide?

[Vural] Of course they will.  However, if relations between Turkey and Armenia improve, the Diaspora cannot have its present influence.  This is because the people of Armenia will see the concrete benefits of good neighborly ties.  When the borders open, trade will grow and they will become rich.

[Duzel] Could Turkey acknowledge that the Ittihadists perpetrated a great massacre of the Armenians?

[Vural] That would be hard.  I think that we painted ourselves into a corner.  Initially, we acted as if nothing like this happened.  Now we are saying that “yes, some things happened but they were reciprocal.”  I do not know where these discussions may go tomorrow, but I think certain psychological steps may be taken on this issue.

[Duzel] What can be done?

[Vural] What would I do if I was in a position of authority?  I would say:  “All Armenians and members other minorities who lived within the current borders of Turkey at the time of the Ottoman Empire and who were subjected to deportation in one way or another–even if this deportation was to other regions of the Empire–will be admitted to Turkish citizenship automatically if they request it.”  I do not know how many people would take up this offer, but, at a minimum, people who were driven out of their villages, towns, or cities by force would have been told:  “The republic is granting you and people of your ancestry the right to return and to become citizens of this country.”  People who apply would be granted this right.

[Duzel] So what would happen to the properties and assets the Armenians left behind during the deportation?

[Vural] These can be discussed.  A fund may be established.  The return of the properties and providing a full accounting for them is now very difficult, but a symbolic reparation is possible.  What matters is that we show that we are not insensitive in the face of a painful situation, that we empathize with the situation, and that we are considering certain ways of compensation as a humanitarian responsibility.  I would actually apologize.  It is quite debatable under what conditions but [ellipsis].  Regardless, if someone is forced to leave this country [ellipsis].  I do not mean this only for Armenians.  I also mean it with respect to people who left after the 6-7 September [1955] incidents.  I mean it with respect to our Greek citizens.

[Duzel] When you say “apologize,” what form of apology do you have in mind?

[Vural] These events are unbecoming for Turkey.  We do not approve them.  The people who were forced to leave this country have our sympathy.  We see them as our brothers.  If they wish, we are prepared to admit them to Turkish citizenship.

[Duzel] And we apologize for the pain we have caused them.

[Vural] Yes. For the pain [ellipsis].  Yes.  These are the best steps that can be taken.  This is what a state like ours should do.”

Sixteen Seventeen Armenians, citizens of Iran, have been killed in a bus accident while visiting their historic homeland in Eastern Turkey.

Photo source: http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=27914

- Harut Sassounian’s weekly commentary has an interesting account in the last paragraph.

 

Armenia Lost the Soccer Match, But Gained International Prestige

 

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

Sep 11, 2008

 

I witnessed history in the making last week when the Turkish President, at the invitation of the Armenian President, paid his first ever visit to Armenia to watch the soccer match between the national teams of their respective countries – a qualifying game for the 2010 World Cup finals.

 

Before the match, some Armenians had been predicting with great nationalistic fervor an outright victory for Armenia , while others were certain that the game would end in a draw, in keeping with the atmosphere of political reconciliation. Armenians frowned upon this writer when he suggested that the powerful Turkish team would most probably win and that the practice of state mandated outcomes for soccer games had ceased with the demise of the Soviet Union . As I had anticipated, the Armenian team lost 2-0 in a lackluster game against the more powerful, but overly cautious Turkish team.

 

When the Turkish President’s jet arrived at Yerevan ’s Zvartnots Airport last Saturday, he was greeted with proper state protocol and hundreds of protesters. Later on, as he arrived at the Presidential Palace for a meeting with the Armenian President, there were more protests, not against him or his visit, but the Turkish state’s denial of the Armenian Genocide. There were lengthy debates in both the Turkish and the Armenian press about the appropriateness of such protests.

 

I believe it would have been highly surprising if the head of the Turkish state that continues to deny the Armenian Genocide had visited Armenia without a single Armenian reminding him that there is an on-going injustice and unresolved issues between the two countries. In the absence of such protests, the Turkish President would have drawn the wrong conclusion that Armenians in Armenia had no problems with Turkey and that the Genocide issue is only raised by the Diaspora, particularly since it was reported that the Genocide was not discussed at all between the two presidents. To draw Pres. Gul’s attention to this important issue, ARF members unfurled a giant unsanctioned banner during the soccer match that called for: “Recognition and Reparations.”

 

Many Armenians were unhappy that the Football Federation of Armenia (FFA) had just decided to remove the sketch of Mount Ararat from the FFA logo on the Armenian soccer players’ uniforms. They viewed this removal as an undesirable attempt to appease Turkey . Some members of the Armenian Parliament were so irate that they pledged to raise their objection in Parliament and possibly take legal action against the FFA.

 

Nevertheless, the soccer match provided a unique opportunity for Pres. Sargsyan and Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian to meet with their Turkish counterparts in Yerevan to discuss the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, possible diplomatic relations between the two countries, the blockade of Armenia by Turkey , and the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform – a new Turkish initiative. The two foreign ministers, after huddling long past midnight, decided to continue their discussions later this month while attending the United Nations General Assembly in New York City . Meanwhile, Pres. Gul invited his Armenian counterpart to come to Istanbul on Oct. 14, 2009 to watch with him the return match between the two national soccer teams.

 

It is not known how much progress was registered in last Saturday’s discussions. Both sides made optimistic statements at the conclusion of their meetings. Several observations could be made, however, regarding recent developments in the region:

– Both Armenia and Turkey have come under intense diplomatic pressure from the United States , Europe and Russia to resolve their long-standing problems which would enable these foreign powers to secure their energy supplies from the Caspian Sea region and engage in the transfer of goods by rail across now closed borders.

– The Georgian-Ossetian-Russian conflict has raised Armenia ’s geopolitical significance in the region at the expense of Georgia and Azerbaijan .

– Turkish officials no longer seem to be setting the resolution of the Artsakh conflict as a pre-condition to establishing relations with Armenia .

– Since Pres. Gul was strongly urged by his domestic opponents, hardliners within his own administration as well as Azerbaijani officials not to go to Armenia, imagine how much more pressure he would have to endure should he decide to establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan and open the closed border with Armenia in the near future!

 

Finally, one concrete attempt at historical reconciliation between a very special Turk and a very special Armenian already succeeded. Milliyet’s journalist Hasan Cemal, the grandson of one of the three masterminds of the Armenian Genocide, Jemal Pasha, had a very touching meeting earlier this week in Yerevan with the grandson of his grandfather’s Armenian assassin in Tbilisi in 1922. A few days ago, Hasan Cemal visited the Genocide Memorial in Yerevan and placed a wreath in memory of the Armenian victims!

While Armenia’s president Serge Sargsyan and his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul are making history with joining hands at an unprecedented sports match between their countries on September 6, 2008, the two men behind this football dialogue may be U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama and assassinated Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink.  

 

Image: Rakel Dink, widow of the slain Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, accompanied by her son Arat Dink in the background, looks at his husband’s picture at the headquarters of Agos newspaper in Istanbul, Turkey, Friday, Sept. 5, 2008. Turkey and Armenia are hoping football diplomacy will help them overcome decades of antagonism rooted in Ottoman-era genocide of Armenians. Turkish President Abdullah Gul travels to Armenia on Saturday to attend a football match between the two historic foes, becoming the first Turkish leader to set foot in Armenia since the ex-Soviet nation declared independence in 1991. (AP Photo/Ibrahim Usta)

 

Both an opportunity for economic boost for landlocked Armenia and an opportunity for restoring international image for Turkey, the football match between the two in Yerevan couldn’t have taken place two years ago. And while many Armenians and Turks on both sides may be angry over this football dialogue due to the issue of the Armenian genocide – that exact experience of extermination, fight for recognition and institutionalized denial is what brings Dink and Obama to the stadium.

 

Hrant Dink, who was assassinated in Istanbul by a young Turkish ultra-nationalist in January 2007, campaigned for Armenian-Turkish reconciliation. His death, followed by some of the largest marches in Turkey’s history, showed much of the Turkey’s society that there is possibility for Armenians to be victim in Turkey. It also showed to Armenians that Turks are capable, yet not necessarily ready, of recognizing wrongs in their history.

 

A while ago I wondered whether Hrant Dink’s death would be the icebreaker in the Armenian-Turkish dialogue, and it seems that Hrant Dink did pave the path to Yerevan’s soccer stadium.

 

While Dink likely never met Barack Obama, the U.S. presidential candidate has his hands in this football dialogue as well – even though he may be completely unaware of it. Obama’s pronounced and unprecedented support for the recognition of the Armenian genocide worries Turks. He has spoken on the genocide on several occasions, including making an official statement and standing up to nationalist Azeri journalists in Baku.  

 

While Obama’s candidacy was first met with fierce reaction in Turkey, now more moderate articles support his general approach in dealing with the world. Turkish diplomats have seem to have admitted that America might have a principled politician who will speak unreservedly on the Armenian genocide, but they also have to do everything to compel Obama to do otherwise.

 

Don’t get me wrong – not all Turks deny the Armenian genocide out of hatred toward Armenians. Turkey’s president Gul, I am quite convinced, would recognize the Armenian genocide if he could afford that. But his moderate presidency is on shaky grounds in a country where fascist ultra-nationalist sentiment is more than half of the time a conventional mood.  

 

Gul will argue to Obama that he is doing his best to reconcile with Armenia, and an official recognition by the United States would jeopardize the process. The football dialogue, Gul will point to, was a huge risk to take (and it is). For the sake of the ultimate benefit of Armenia, recognizing the genocide at a time when nationalist sentiment is high in Turkey – Gul will argue – is poor judgment.

 

Whether Obama will stay an inspiration for today’s football dialogue or also become a victim of that match on April 24 is difficult to say. His running mate Joe Biden says Armenia has no better friends than the Vice Presidential nominee, but principles are not as firm in politics as in soccer.

 

One person who died for his principles, Hrant Dink, would have been happy and worried with the football dialogue. As one Turkish columnist points out, Gul’s visit to Yerevan is, in a way, tribute to Dink.  

Turks cannot be without Armenians, Armenians cannot be without Turks!

By Ayse Hur – Taraf Newspaper, September 1, 2008 (translated from Turkish by the Zoryan Institute; published by Ayse Hur’s permission)

While waiting for President Gul to make a decision on whether to attend the Yerevan soccer game on September 6, I tried to assemble all the facts, and I wonder if you agree with them. We still could not agree on how to define the events that befell on the Armenians 93 years ago. In the 85-year history of our Republic, we found only four Armenians deserving to enter the Parliament. We were unable to see any Armenians in the public and military sectors. We tried to erase the names and memories of Armenian settlements and locations, Armenian authors, artists, architects and statesmen. We converted Armenian cultural institutions and churches into mosques, military buildings, and if not feasible to do so, into animal stables, and if that did not work, we demolished them. We ruined the Armenian businessmen in 1942 with the Capital Tax, and then on 6-7 September 1955 with wholesale plunder. We repossessed the Armenian charitable foundation buildings in 1974. At last we succeeded in reducing the Armenian population of Turkey to 70,000.

Terminology Wounds

We filled the school history books with definitions of the Armenian enemies. We forced Armenian students to write compositions derogatory to the Armenians. We witnessed government ministers, religious and intellectual leaders, soccer fans and historic society presidents using derogatory terms such as “from Armenian seed,” “Armenian bastards,” “unfortunately Armenian.”  We also witnessed the secret investigation of converted or crypto Armenians since the 1930s to the 1980s.  We saw persons are set free with suspended sentences after sending death threats to the Armenian religious leaders or community newspapers. We saw the most peaceful leader of the Armenian community shot to death from behind, as well as the murderers protected by the state at various levels. We observed the numerous lame excuses brought forward by a country of 70 million people in order not to open borders with a tiny country of 3 million.

Definition of an Event

As we conduct ourselves in such a manner toward a minority and toward a tiny country, do we really think that the world would believe our version of the 1915 events? Forget the world, can we believe ourselves? In my opinion, the word “genocide” is not only a legal term defining the 1915 events, but is also an all-encompassing definition of our behavior toward the Armenian minority, their culture, history, state, diaspora, our denial, exclusion, hatred and animosity toward the Armenians. The level of civilization in a society should be seriously questioned if there is complete indifference or lack of empathy to other people’s griefs. Therefore, I see a lot more benefits than strategic advantages in President Gul’s acceptance of Yerevan’s invitation, including the possible unlocking of 90 years of barriers.

Children of These Lands

The historic Armenian kingdoms stretching from Cilicia to Caucasus were quite advantageous as far as rivers are concerned, but quite the contrary geopolitically. These lands were repeatedly the scene of endless battles and occupation in wars between Rome, its successor Byzantium and Persians and Arabs, resulting in Armenians being massacred, prosecuted and deported. The Cilician Armenian kingdom did achieve its golden age during the 10th and 11th centuries, partially with the support of the Crusaders, maintaining continuous independence for more than three centuries. Although this last kingdom ended in 1375, the Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church continued to exist in these lands until 1441. After the fall of the kingdom, although some Armenians chose to stay in these lands, others settled in Italy, Russia, Syria and France.

Birth of Nationalism

After 1453, the country of Armenia was split between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Safavid Empire. The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror invited the Armenians living in Cilicia, Western Anatolia and Bulgaria to his capital city, and established a policy combining assimilation with recognition of an Armenian millet – “community” in the Empire. Starting from the 17th century, Armenian merchant communities started to appear in various parts of the world. The first nationalist ideologies started to take root at this phase. Armenian dictionaries, literature, history books started to appear, mostly through the efforts of Catholic Mkhitarist religious organizations. The first Armenian printing house and newspaper was established in Madras, India in 1794. Unfortunately, the awakening of Armenian nationalism within the Ottoman Empire had tragic consequences. The failure of implementation of reforms in Anatolia brought clashes between the Armenians and the Ottoman government, resulting in the 1894-1895 Sasun-Urfa and 1909 Adana massacres.

Abandonment of Ottoman Identity

The proclamation of the 1908 Constitutional government in the Ottoman Empire was greeted with enthusiasm by all minorities and the non-Muslims; however, once the non-Muslims realized that the governing Ittihat Terakki Party would continue the Sultan Abdulhamid’s policies of Pan-Islamism and even replace it with a Pan-Turkism, they started moving toward independent nation-state ideals, following European trends. During a Samatya-Istanbul mass meeting before the Balkan Wars, the Finance Minister Cavit Bey stated that “Even if our Armenian citizens have complaints about our government, they are always ready to help the fatherland. I assure you, Armenians cannot be without the Turks, Armenians are the true blood brother of the Turks;” however, the 1912 Balkan War, which started with slogans of “We Ottomans will terrorize the whole world,” “Long live the Army, long live our War,” “Ottomans all the way to the Danube,” “Sofia will be ours, Philippopolis will be ours,” resulted in huge land and people losses and the Ittihat Terakki leaders, mostly originating from the Balkan territories, went into a shock. The participation of a few Caucasian Armenians in the ranks of Bulgarian and Serbian armies started to ring the alarm bells for the Armenians.

The Ottoman Armenians were encouraged by the support and promises of protection by Russia, as well as the weakened state of the Ottoman government after the Balkan War. In a rare state of unity, the Dashnak and Hnchag leaders of the Armenian community sent a letter to the Sadrazam – Prime Minister, demanding the arrest and punishment of the officials and civilians involved in the massacre and plunder of the Armenians in the Eastern Provinces. In the end, on January 8, 1914, the Ittihat Terakki government relented to implement a reform plan for the Eastern Provinces, under pressure from the European powers. Although this reform plan was much needed, it had become a mechanism of manipulating the Ottomans and aligning the interest of the individual European States.

The complete breakdown came about six months later. The Central Committee of the Ittihat Terakki Party sent Bahadin Shakir, Omer Naci and Hilmi Bey to the 8th World Congress of the Tashnag Party in Erzurum, on August 14, 1914. They tried to convince the Armenians to side with the Ottomans against the Russians in the event of a possible conflict, promising Armenian independence. The Armenians refused, sensing positive international sentiment on their side. The Armenian leaders, swollen with nationalistic ideas under the Europeans’ influence, had a plan similar to the one that would shape the nationalistic goals of Mustafa Kemal five years later – to sever the ties with the dilapidated, weakened Ottoman Empire and to found a nation-state.

Zeytun and Van Events

The Ittihat Terakki leaders who had given up on the Ottoman multinational ideology and had adopted the Turkish nationalism principles, had finally realized that there is no hope of getting the Armenians’ support; in fact, they completely understood that the Armenians would pose a big problem for them. Therefore, they started looking for pretexts to force them to leave their lands. The events of Zeytun (Suleymanli district of Kahraman Marash province) happened at this time. According to the Ottoman sources, about 60 draft dodgers had arrived in Zeytun on August 30, 1914, and along with 500-600 other Armenian youngsters, had barricaded themselves in the most secure building in the region, at the St. Mary Monastery. The army had ordered the arrest of these Armenians by Major Hursit Bey, who organized attacks by four army units, two cavalry units and two cannons. The battle of the uneven forces, which lasted all day on March 25, 1915, resulted in 37 dead and 100 wounded by the Armenians, and 8 dead (including the Major) plus 26 wounded by the Turkish army. The Armenian mayor of Zeytun, Sergeant Nazaret was also among the dead and his corpse was brought to Marash to be exhibited.

The Van events followed immediately thereafter. Although the cruel conduct of the young and inexperienced Van Governor, Cevdet Bey, is widely accepted by even the Turkish sources as a trigger for the Armenian revolt in Van, the Armenians helped the surrender of the Van Fort to the Russians in March 1915. These two events initiated the activation of a long prepared Ittihat Terakki plan. First, a large group of Armenian intellectuals from Istanbul were arrested and sent to Ayas and Chankiri, then others followed and eventually the entire Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire was driven toward the Syrian Desert.

We will not go into the details but we can categorically state that these politically initiated deportations were not limited to the Armenians in the “war zone” or only in the Eastern Provinces, but covered all regions of the Ottoman Empire. Contrary to Turkish allegations, there were also deportations from Istanbul and Izmir. Not only nationalistic Armenians were deported, but also all loyal Ottoman subjects. Not only able bodied Armenians were deported, but also newborn babies, the sick and elderly in their deathbeds. Not only the Gregorian-Apostolic Armenians were deported, but also the Catholics and the Protestants. In some regions, the Armenians were given 15 days notice prior to the deportations; in most regions, they were deported immediately, without even being allowed to carry anything other than what they were wearing on themselves.

The toll of these deportations over a period of 17 months was immense. Even Talat Pasha, the architect of the deportations, admitted in his memoirs, “The essentially militaristic prevention project had become a tragedy in the hands of officials with no conscience and no character.” (Talat Pasha Memoirs, published by Alpay Kabacali, Istanbul, Turkiye Is Bankasi Cultural Publications, 2006, p. 72). Acording to the War Crimes Committee formed by the Ottoman Interior Ministry after the war under the direction of Mustafa Arif Deymer, the number of Armenian victims was 800,000 (Vakit newspaper, March 15, 1919). The Army Chief of Staff indicated in a 1928 document that “The Eastern Provinces of Anatolia lost 500,000 Moslems during the war; another 800,000 Armenians and 200,000 Greeks died due to massacres and deportations.” (Hikmet Bayur, Turk Inkilap Tarihi, v. 3, part 4, Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari, 1991, page 787). The semi official “state historian,” diplomat Kamuran Gurun significantly discounted these numbers by stating, “Therefore, no matter how we estimate, the number of Armenians that lost their lives due to various reasons does not exceed 300,000.” (Ermeni Dosyasi, page 27).

Formation of Diaspora

The Armenian survivors of the deportations eventually travelled to all four corners of the world. At present there are communities with a population of 2 million in Russia, 800,000 in the USA, 320,000 in Georgia, 350,000 in France, 150,000 in Ukraine, 110,000 in Lebanon, 100,000 in Iran, 80,000 in Syria, 60,000 in Argentina, 60,000 in Turkey, 100,000 in Canada and 60,000 in Australia. There are also smaller communities ranging from 3,000 to 25,000 in England, Greece, Germany, Belgium, Brazil, Sweden, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, Holland, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia and Switzerland. (There are claims of Armenian communities in 60 or even 85 countries). It is estimated that about 5 to 6 million Armenians live in the Diaspora.

In Turkey, the term Armenian Diaspora is automatically and negatively defined as “hated for Turks” or “confrontation.” The word Diaspora is made up of the Greek roots speiro – distributed seeds, and dia – from head to head. The word was first used to describe the Jews driven from Babylon as they were dispersed all over the world, as well as the Greeks’ various colonies. At present, all communities that had to leave their fatherland due to conditions related to war, famine, torture, economics, etc. are defined as “diaspora communities.” It is said that in the future, diasporas will become “a force without a state,” as the history, area and population of diaspora people will be greater than nation-states.  There are more than 150 diaspora groups in the USA alone, and some political scientists have re-named the EU as DiasEuropa.

Regardless of their origins, all diaspora groups have some common characteristics. First of all, they keep memories of the fatherland alive, they create myths around the home and the old country, and they pass these along to the next generation. Secondly, they have a mistrust that their new adopted country will truly accept them, they feel discriminated against, they still feel strong ties toward their first country and therefore, they condition the next generation to return to their home country once the conditions are right. Third, they do their utmost helping the home country. Lastly, in order to keep their ethnic identity until it is time to return to their home country, they organize and maintain events of cultural, historic and artistic heritage. The Armenian Diaspora fully displays all these common traits. It is obvious how much effort is spent by the Armenian Diaspora in maintaining their identity when faced with forces of globalization, which is even wiping out nation-states.

Policies of the Turkish Republic

Even though we cannot decide today how to define the 1915 events as “deportation,” “massacres,” “murders,” “destruction” or “genocide,”  it was not that difficult to talk about these events just when they happened. But after the 1920s it became increasingly impossible to open this subject. Certain people got annoyed when this subject came up. Who were these people? Falih Rifki Atay, who stood by Mustafa Kemal throughout his life, states in his Cankaya book that all those Ottoman officials that the Allies started to investigate and prosecute for the Armenian deportations and war crimes took up arms and joined Kemal’s resistance forces. In fact, “National War Heroes” such as Yenibahceli Sukru, Nail, Deli Halit, Kucuk Kazim, Ipsiz Recep, Dayi Mesut, Kara Aslan, Kel Oglan, Giritli Sevki, Cerkez Ethem, Serezli Parti Pehlivan, Topal Osman, Yahya Kahya are all organizers of Armenian massacres.

What is more, Ottoman officials involved with the Armenian deportations such as Deportation and Immigration General Director Sukru Kaya, Bitlis and Aleppo Member of Parliament Mustafa Abdulhalik Renda, Public Health General Inspector Tevfik Rustu Aras (in charge of mass burial of Armenians), Security Director Ahmet Esta Uras, Van Gendarmerie Commander Kazim Ozalp, Ittihat Terakki Party Aegean Inspector Celal Bayar, have all moved on to hold government posts in the new Turkish Republic, such as member of parliament, governor, minister, security director, speaker of parliament and president. Obviously it is unrealistic to expect these officials to freely talk about or admit to the “1915 events.”

Mustafa Kemal’s Attitude

What was Mustafa Kemal’s opinion about these events, who was also a member of the Ittihat Terakki Party but was pushed to the sidelines by Enver Pasha in the leadership struggle? It is a well accepted fact that Mustafa Kemal himself was not involved in the Armenian deportations. But it is uncertain what he “really” thought about these events. When he was asked about the Armenian massacres by American General Harbord in Sivas in September 1919, he responded that the Armenian massacres and deportations were the action and responsibility of a small committee that controlled the government, and that he himself “criticized and blamed” them. (Rauf Orbay, Rauf Orbay Memoirs, Yakin Tarihimiz Dergisi, v. 3, page 179). In his April 24, 1920 dated speech in the Parliament, he named the 1915 actions against the Armenians as “a shameful act in the past.” (Ataturk’un TBMM Acik ve Gizli Oturumlarindaki Konusmalari, V.1, Ankara Kultur Bakanligi Yayinlari, 1991, page 59).

After General Kazim Karabekir’s 15th Army defeated the Armenians and took back Kars, and after the Armenians gave up all their land claims with the Gumru Treaty dated December 3, 1920, his interpretation about these events changed.  In an interview dated February 21, 1921 to a reporter of Public Ledger – Philadelphia, his response is clear: “World opinion which is indifferent to Great Britain’s wartime and peace time actions in Ireland, cannot find any valid accusation against us for our decisions about the Armenians. Contrary to allegations against us, the deportees have survived and most of them would have returned to their homes, if the Allies had not started