While most people know Samantha Power as an Obama adviser who has called Hillary Clinton a “monster,” many genocide awareness and prevention activists consider the Harvard professor a hope they can believe in. The Associated Press has noticed that Power, who officially resigned from Obama’s campaign during the Democratic primaries, is on US President-elect Obama’s transition team. This news has encouraged several Armenian bloggers who now feel assured that the author of “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” (2002) will remind President-elect Barack Obama to keep his promise of officially recognizing the WWI Armenian Genocide committed by Ottoman Turks.

[…]

Back with Obama, Power has reignited hope among many Armenians. But some have wished for more. Joseph at the ArmenianGenocide forum:

Samantha Power is back on the Obama team and will be working at the State Department. This is good for Armenians, as she will give a direct challenge to Hillary Clinton { Hillary WILL betray us} and will be a honest broker in a institution where honesty and integrity is a very rare commodity. Still, would have loved to have Samantha Power as our Sec. of State.

The full post is available at Voices without Votes.

Armenian-American celebritiy Kim Kardashian is at it again: now calling on her supporters to vote “yes” in an online poll that asks whether the United States should officially recognize the Armenian Genocide or not.  In her own words:

[…]

I firmly believe the U.S. should officially recognize the horrific and historical atrocity of the Armenian Genocide, also known as the “Great Calamity.”

For those of you who don’t know about it: More than a million Armenian people were marched to their death during World War I and beyond. I know, the number is so staggering, I cannot even fathom it.

Right now MSNBC has posted a poll on the matter and I cannot believe how many people have voted “no.” I’m left to wonder if people are really aware of the gravity of the situation.
 
I voted “yes” and would appreciate it if you felt it in your heard to vote “yes” too.

As I mentioned earlier this year, Kim Kardashian has been talking about visiting her father’s homeland – Armenia.

While it is encouraging to see an American celebrity getting involved in some serious stuff, perhaps Kardashian should be using her influence in more productive ways. Who cares what an online poll says where hackers can vote one million times?

Here is what Kim can do instead:

1. Organize and host a fundraiser for Armenian genocide awareness in the United States (for instance, to donate the money to the in-progress Armenian Genocide Museum in Washington D.C.)

2. Encourage (personally) Silvester Stalone to keep up his dream of making a movie on the Armenian Genocide

3. Personally call Barack Obama and remind him to keep his promise in April

Voices Without Votes, a Global Voices and Reuters project, has just published my post summarizing some Armenian reactions to the U.S. elections. The post is available here. It is also linked on Reuters: http://blogs.reuters.com/us/.

While there is no single designated mass grave of Armenians in the Republic of Turkey, there are dozens of monuments, streets, and even schools honoring the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide.

Some time ago I reflected on the fate of genocide-honoring monuments in Turkey in the aftermath of a possible Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Now, a long but interesting article in Londoon Review of Books – brought to my attention by fellow blogger Raffi Kojian – details some genocide memorials in Turkey.

[…]

Finally, there is the Armenian genocide, its authors honoured in streets and schools across the country, whose names celebrate the murderers. Talat: a boulevard in Ankara, four avenues in Istanbul, a highway in Edirne, three municipal districts, four primary schools. Enver: three avenues in Istanbul, two in Izmir, three in occupied Cyprus, primary schools in Izmir, Mugla, Elazig. Cemal Azmi, responsible for the deaths of thousands in Trabzon: a primary school in that city. Resit Bey, the butcher of Diyarbekir: a boulevard in Ankara. Mehmet Kemal, hanged for his atrocities: thoroughfares in Istanbul and Izmir, statues in Adana and Izmir, National Hero Memorial gravestone in Istanbul. As if in Germany squares, streets and kindergarten were called after Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, without anyone raising an eyebrow. Books extolling Talat, Enver and Sakir roll off the presses, in greater numbers than ever. Nor is all this merely a legacy of a Kemalist past. The Islamists have continued the same tradition into the present. If Talat’s catafalque was borne by armoured train from the Third Reich for burial with full honours by Inönü in 1943, it was Demirel who brought Enver’s remains back from Tajikistan in 1996, and reburied them in person at a state ceremony in Istanbul. Beside him, as the cask was lowered into the ground, stood the West’s favourite Muslim moderate: Abdullah Gul, now AKP president of Turkey.

[…]

The rest of the article is an interesting read.

Thursday morning I had my first guest lecture – through videoconference – for an Anthropology class on Truth and Reconciliation at the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). My topic was the Armenian Genocide, and what are the prospects for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

Thursday afternoon, I received an e-mail from a young Turkish woman from Scotland. She wrote:

hi

i stumbled across your blog and just wanted to thank you. i am a turkish girl studying in scotland, my mother and our family come from malatya. my grandfather is an apricot farmer. well, he used to be. he is a very old man now. he has been saying for a few years now that he won’t be seeing very many more springs come into bloom. i’ve read a few of posts (i will sit down and devour more, i am actually meant to be writing a paper at the moment) the Hasan Cemal one really hit a nerve.
my mother knew Hrant Dink. when he use to phone her, he use to call her “Toprağım” (my earth/my land).
i’ve never seen her mourn the way she did when he was murdered.
i am not in the habit of writing such strangely emotional emails.
i am trying and not really succeeding, i am not entirely sure why i am crying in front of my laptop, for what it is worth in it’s own little way – i am sorry. i feel that your blog and the insight and information it provides is wonderful and do keep up the good work.

Thank you.

This e-mail brought smile to my face. The hours I had spent preparing my lecture was not worthless. Armenian-Turkish reconciliation is not only possible, but it is happening right now on some personal levels.

Anyway, here are a few excerpts from my 10-page (double spaced) talk this morning which was followed by questions from IUPUI students.

[…]

I have no records of a family tree that goes back before 1915 even though the world’s oldest map that we know shows Armenia as one of the few countries known to the ancient Babylonians. Naturally, I was brought up to hate those who committed the genocide. But, as a child, I was also taught of a kind Turkish woman who saved my father’s grandmother during the genocide and kept her as her own daughter for eight years.

I am alive because a Turkish woman helped my great-grandmother escape a Turkish massacre in 1915. So, naturally, the seeds to reconciliation between Armenians and Turks are to be found in harsh history itself.

(Later I reviewed the history of the Armenian Genocide and what has happened in the last 90 years in the conflict.) 

As some of you may know, Turkey’s president Abdullah Gul visited Armenia last month to watch a soccer match together. Referred to as “soccer diplomacy,” this move was initiated by Armenia’s new and perhaps undemocratically elected president Serzh Sargsyan. Both presidents took huge risks by attending this unprecedented and historic event, and many people hoped this could be the start of a better future.

Today’s Armenia is a small, landlocked country with a decreasing population and a sad history. It’s most advanced neighbor, Turkey, has committed a genocide that it say never took place. If Turkey opens the border, Armenia could have access to open markets and business would benefit Armenia. But many Armenians, especially Armenians in the Diaspora, feel that Turkey must recognize the Armenian Genocide before Turkey and Armenia can become friends. And many Turks, think that Armenia should destroy its Genocide Memorial and forget history before Turkey should open the border.

Surprisingly, the leadership of the Republic of Armenia and Turkey seem to be open to change – openly supported by the West. Last month’s “soccer diplomacy” is a good public image for Turkey and a real economic opportunity for Armenia, but the question that haunts us is whether reconciliation or truth comes first. Will an unconditional reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey move Turks to recognize the Genocide? Does Armenia have the right to reconcile with Turkey without the Diaspora’s concern? Who is the Armenian Diaspora? Who speaks for the Diaspora? Nationalist leaders or people who spend money to their families in Armenia every month?

And, finally, what is it that will make Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide? What if Turkey doesn’t democratize for another 90 years.

These are questions with no satisfying or simple answers, but questions that raise the underlying issue of justice. Perhaps if Turkey is not ready to recognize the Armenian Genocide, it can start protecting and renovating Armenian sacred sites – cathedrals and cemeteries – places of memory that are the only proof that a historic Armenia once existed in what is today Turkey. Perhaps the Armenian Diaspora can establish more ties with progressive people in Turkey and tell them that even though we will never forget the Armenian Genocide, we will also never forget the kindness of those Turks who helped us during the Genocide. The path to reconciliation is impossible without acknowledging the past, but admitting realities can start with little things such as accepting that Armenians and Turks are human beings who have lived together for hundreds of years, that we both share values of justice, fairness, hospitality and family. That no matter how hard we try, we will never stop being neighbors.  

I am an optimist, and I think Armenians and Turks will one day see some part of themselves in each others’ eyes.

Los Angeles, Calif.–A civil action against the National Archives and Records Administration of the United States was filed yesterday seeking documents as they relate to the Armenian Genocide (1914 to 1925). (Vartkes Yeghiayan v. National Archives and Records Administration of the United States of America, Case No. CV08-16248, U.S. District Court, Central District of Calif., Sept. 23, 2008).
 
“Repeated efforts have been made to procure these documents, but the National Archives has been non-responsive,” says Mark MacCarley, partner with Glendale, Calif.-based MacCarley & Rosen who is representing plaintiff Vartkes Yeghiayan. “Its actions are in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).”
 
The initial request by Yeghiayan occurred in April 2006. “The National Archives acknowledged receipt of the request, but has not provided the information despite repeated inquires from my client,” says MacCarley. “The National Archives, without explanation, has exceeded the generally applicable 20-day deadline for processing FOIA requests. We simply want the requested documentation.”
 
Yeghiayan is an attorney who has successfully litigated lawsuits in State and Federal courts against U.S. and foreign businesses for Armenian Genocide asset restitution. More than 1.5 million Armenians were killed during the genocide with millions more deported from the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey). Yeghiayan filed the FOIA request because he believes documents are being held by the U.S. government that would identify countries having either direct complicity in the Armenian Genocide or profited by the Ottoman Turks actions against Armenians.
 
“This lawsuit is on behalf of Armenian-Americans who are seeking documentation and information that could shed light on what happened to their loved ones during the Armenian Genocide,” says Yeghiayan.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Contact: Obama Press Office; (312) 819-2423

On this day, September 21, Armenians and friends of Armenia everywhere celebrate the independence of the Republic of Armenia, and I extend my warmest and best wishes on this happy occasion.  Throughout their long history, a spirit of independence, self-reliance, and survival defines the Armenian people. After centuries of living in the Persian, Russian, and Turkish empires, Armenians first achieved their modern independence in 1918 and regained it after 70 years of Soviet rule in 1991.  Their struggle continues, but in the years of renewed independence they have been able to guide their own destiny through years of war and economic dislocation.   Even in the face of genocide, the pain of the past has not defeated the Armenians, either in Armenia or the far-flung diaspora.

America has benefited tremendously from the vigor and talents of the Armenian people.  Armenian-Americans have made enormous contributions to American life – to our arts and academia, to business, science, and politics – while still maintaining strong ties to their ancestral home.

Recent events in the Caucasus region remind us of both the importance of rededicating ourselves to peace, and the possibility of progress even where there is a long history of alienation.  The conflict in Georgia shows the danger that lurks when rising tensions are ignored and the United States pursues a diplomatic strategy of neglect.  But in recent days we have also seen the hopeful step – taken by the Presidents of Turkey and Armenia — to restart dialogue that could, in time, bring a welcome normalization of relations and offer Armenia more diversified opportunities for trade, transport, and energy supplies.  American policy must build on this step, to ensure that Armenia enjoys a future not merely of independence but of partnership and cooperation with the U.S. and its allies.

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.”

– 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.