Annie Totah’s e-mail, presumably sent to a Jewish audience to demonstrate the superiority of her chosen candidate (Hillary Clinton), may or may not sway its intended readers. Frankly, I don’t care. In fact I wouldn’t even care if the other candidate were targeted. That’s not the point. Totah and ARMENPAC have chosen to support Clinton. That’s actually good. This way, regardless of who wins, with the ANC’s endorsement of Obama, one faction of our community plugged in.
But resorting to sleazy, innuendo-laden tactics like using this article reflects poorly on us as a community. It certainly reflects poorly on the organizations in which Totah holds high positions. But then, in the Assembly’s case, perhaps this is to be expected. Remember, they won the “coveted” SpitRain Award last August. In case you think I’m overreacting, here’s how Ben Smith describes Totah: “a Washington society figure and Armenian-American activist who’s also a member of Clinton’s finance committee.” Those who don’t personally know any other “Armenian-American activists” might, given human nature, attribute to the rest of us a love of gutter politics.
I’m not starry-eyed, nor delusional. Politics is blood sport. Of course these kinds of things will be done. But there’s a wisdom that’s expected of those holding visible positions in organizations. They cannot be associated with this kind of activity because it reflects poorly on the organization. For all I know, the Clinton campaign may have been following exactly this line of thinking by feeding Totah Lasky’s piece to disseminate.
Please call on Annie Totah, ARCA, ARMENPAC and the Armenian Assembly to apologize for this embarrassing gaffe. If she refuses, those organizations and others she serves should remove her from any offices she holds.
If they don’t, then we the community will know how to judge and not support them in the future.
A highly-disliked Associated Press article titled “Obama may face grilling on patriotism” – rated 2.5 out of 5 stars by Yahoo! users – seems to take the somewhat xenophobic definition of “patriotism” by Red Scare-style conservatives for granted.
The Associated Press article starts off by stating:
Sen. Barack Obama‘s refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.
Now Obama’s wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she’s really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.
[…]
Although the article does end up reporting factual information and interpretation that disclose the black pr against the Democratic candidate later in the article, the anti-Obama lynching campaign by some conservative and nationalist circles to label the Illinois Senator as “un-American” seems to satisfy the Associated Press to use the word “patriotism” without quotation marks in reporting the hateful attempt to make an enemy of a person millions of Americans have voted for.
And while the lynching campaign against Barack Obama by nationalist circles comes as no surprise – and will definitely become worse in the months to come – it is surprising to see the Associated Press stating that “Obama may face grilling on patriotism” suggesting that it has been somehow demonstrated that Obama is not a “patriot.” The Associated Press is the one that should face grilling… on (un)ethical journalism.
Yesterday a Kenyan-born American friend (not Barack Obama) texted me stating, “I have been following what’s going on in Armenia – what the heck is going on?”
I haven’t texted my friend back because I haven’t figured out myself what the heck is going on in Armenia. The protests against the official election results continue – and although it is nice to see people challenging the establishment – those very “challengers” are the founding fathers of corruption and crook-like politics in modern Armenia that is not much different from how the current authorities work.
One thing, nonetheless, that can’t be disputed is the people’s strive for change in Armenia. It is not merely about economy and poverty, as most observers and insiders suggest, but also about the treatment that people receive from the government and the way they are told to perceive the treatment by the government-controlled media.
One thing, for sure, that has pissed many people off is the unfair mainstream media coverage of former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s campaign. Needless to say, when Ter-Petrosyan was in power the media did the same against his opponents.
Interestingly, I got to meet the person in charge of Armenia’s public TV’s news department last year and I asked him what was his line of separation between state v. authorities in the context of his recent statement (in an interview to Menq Magazine) that “I will do nothing that would shake the foundations of the state.” Although it was obvious that he didn’t think I was an idiot, his answer was for a complete idiot in which he was trying to explain to me what “state” and “authorities” meant. This demonstrates the mindset of Armenia’s media in dealing with the audience they are talking to.
Although Armenia’s presidential election is largely seen as “generally democratic” by most observers, there have been some cases of serious violations and human rights abuses by now president-elect Serzh Sargsyan’s regime. Although Sargsyan’s main competetor (the former president Levon Ter Petrosyan) hasn’t been any better – if not worse – in treating his political rivals in the past, it is disturbing that serious human rights violations have happened during Tuesday’s election.
Abovian, about 20 kilometers from Yerevan
Larissa Tadevosian, a proxy for Ter-Petrosian, has told Human Rights Watch that she went to polling station 28/7 in Abovian at approximately 7:30 a.m. Three large, athletic men approached her, and two of them dragged her out of the polling station. Tadevosian struggled to free herself, but was dragged across the yard and shoved into a car. The three men drove Tadevosian to a deserted area outside the town. After taking her out of the car, one man beat her on the head and face. “They told me that I should be silent and not say anything more about the elections,” she told Human Rights Watch. “They threatened to rape me. They threatened to harm my family.” The men then left Tadevosian in the deserted area and drove away.
Tadevosian was unable to return to the polling station because of her condition. She went directly to the police, who ordered a forensic medical examination. Two days after the attack, she complained of headaches, dizziness, and other medical problems.
Gurgen Eghizarian, a proxy for Ter-Petrosian and a former deputy head of the National Security Service, received information that election observers at polling station 28/6 in Abovian had been kidnapped and beaten. He has stated that he went to the polling station together with Erjan Abgarian, a 68-year-old Ter-Petrosian proxy and former head of the customs service. Election commission representatives and observers there denied that they had seen anything happen to the observers, but Eghizarian demanded that the senior election commission representative sign a statement about what had happened. While at the polling station, a group of seven or eight men armed with pistols attacked Eghizarian, his son, and Abgarian, beating them on the kidneys, ribs, and back. Eghizarian told Human Rights Watch that the men also threatened him and the others saying, “Sargsian will be president, and if you go against him, you will be killed.” He suffers headaches and has a bruise on his forehead as a result of the assault.
A senior official for Ter-Petrosian told Human Rights Watch that at least three other proxies were beaten in Abovian on election day.
Another Ter-Petrosian proxy who wished to remain anonymous told Human Rights Watch that large, athletic men would arrive periodically at another polling station in Abovian and would take prospective voters aside “for a little chat,” apparently in order to influence their votes. These same men also spoke to election commission officials, observers, and candidates’ proxies, and threatened them should they speak out about any violations. This same proxy told Human Rights Watch that in mid-afternoon some men took him aside and threatened him and told him, “You didn’t see anything.” He claimed that these men were responsible for stealing and falsifying ballots and stuffing the ballot box at this polling station. Police stood by and did not respond. This proxy stated that he continued to fear for his safety and had sent his children to another location and was reluctant to leave his own apartment.
Painting of a star and crescent at Armenian place of worship is being called a hate crime.
By Ryan Vaillancourt
NORTHWEST GLENDALE — Police say vandals who spray-painted a crescent and star design on a wall at St. Peter Armenian Church on Sunday committed a hate crime by meaning to intimidate Armenians by invoking the Turkish flag.
Church congregants discovered what they described as a red crescent and star spray-painted on the wall outside the church, along Kenilworth Road. The graffiti has since been painted over.
Many Armenians harbor deep enmity for the modern Republic of Turkey for its refusal to recognize the genocide committed against Armenians between 1915 and 1918 by the former Ottoman Empire.
Depicting a Turkish flag on the side of an Armenian church would be similar to putting a swastika on a synagogue, Glendale Police Officer John Balian said.
“It’s the same significance,” he said. “This is obviously considered vandalism, but it’s also considered a hate crime if you can prove the perpetrator did it for hatred reasons.”
Police have not identified any suspects and are not pursuing any leads, he said.
“That’s why it’s imperative to get community involvement in identifying the perpetrators,” he said. “Any time you vandalize a church or a synagogue, any type of church, we won’t tolerate it, and we’ll do everything we can to find the people.”
Anoush Dekmejian, a church trustee who believes the vandalism took place during a Sunday morning service, said she immediately recognized the crescent and star shapes as those on the Turkish flag.
“My impression, immediately, was that it was a hate crime,” said Dekmejian, who reported the incident to police at about 1:30 p.m. Sunday.
But St. Peter’s pastor, Father Vazken Movsesian, who is well-known for his advocacy on behalf of genocide recognition — not only of the Armenian Genocide but the ongoing genocidal conflict in Darfur — downplayed the incident, saying the graffiti was more reminiscent of a child’s depiction of a star and a moon.
He compared the symbols to stationery in his office that shows golden moons and shining stars in the margins.
“You’d be hard-pressed to say it was the Turkish flag,” Movsesian said. “Really, honestly, it seems sensationalized . . . . I really saw a kid’s drawing.”
Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian said he believed the vandalism was tied to racial tensions surrounding a controversial absentee ballot application ordinance.
“I really don’t think that it’s an isolated incident,” Najarian said.
“I think it’s directly related to the attention that the absentee application issue has garnered . . . . Bottom line is, it’s just sad that it has occurred.”
Police are asking anyone with information about the incident to call the Crime Stoppers line, which allows anonymous calls, at (818) 507-7867.
A U.S.-born Armenian politician is facing criticism for the content of a letter he has sent to Turkey’s president. Here is a column by Appo Jabarian summarizing some of the reactions in Armenia:
Raffi Hovannisian Panders to Turkey
At the Cost of Political Bankruptcy
By APPO JABARIAN
Executive Publisher/Managing Editor
USA ARMENIAN LIFE Magazine
August 29, 2007, Armenia’s Heritage Party leader Raffi K. Hovannisian sent a letter of congratulations to the then newly elected Turkish president Abdullah Gul.
He wrote: “The deep divides between our countries, be they of contemporary character or part of the legacy of the Great Armenian Dispossession, must be overcome and resolved in truth, with integrity, and through the partnership of the two new leaders and their fellow citizens of good faith and conscience.”
Soon after the content of the letter was revealed, the highly insulting term “Great Armenian Dispossession” used in lieu of the words “The Armenian Genocide” sent political shockwaves in Armenia and the Diaspora. Heritage Party officials hoped the issue would disappear with the flow of time. But the exact opposite happened.
On February 13, Armen Tsaturyan of “Hayots Ashkhar” (The Armenian World) wrote a scathing commentary against Hovannisian. He stated: “If we set aside all the political major and minor likability and non-likability issues and are guided by cool logic, we can not define Raffi Hovannisian’s action except with one word: ‘Treason.'”
Tsaturyan reported that Hovannisian pandered to Turkey as follows: “It is to be hoped that, during your tenure and that of the next Armenian president to be elected in several months’ time, Turkish-Armenian relations will enter a wholly new phase of reflection, exploration, discovery, and ultimate normalization.”
“It turns out that the son of historian Richard Hovannisian, a notable heir to the victims of the Armenian Genocide, needs further ‘studies’ on the issue of the Armenian Genocide. With his outlandish proposal to co-initiate ‘studies,’ he is furthering the Turkish obvious goal to establish a joint commission of historians. And that is the shortest route to subjecting the facts of the Armenian genocide to suspicion,” concluded Tsaturyan.
On February 16, according to Noyan Tapan news agency, in an open letter to the Heritage Party, the chairman of the Armenian community of Slovakia Ashot Grigorian blasted Hovannisian: “No doubt, Raffi Hovannisian should have been well aware of the political value of the term ‘genocide,’ whose importance is hard to overestimate today. Turkey is ready to pay dearly if the Armenians agree to replace the term ‘genocide’ with any other word. … In his letter, Hovannisian replaced voluntarily the term ‘genocide’ with another term more acceptable to Turks, thus ruining the work we have done for years and decades. This calls into question today the result of the huge and hard work on passing the resolution on the genocide in the National Assembly of Slovakia. The resolutions passed by the parliaments of about twenty countries have also been deprived of meaning.”
An Armenian activist underlined: “As the saying goes, one should not change horses in mid-stream, Armenians have invested decades of effort to get the words Armenian Genocide recognized. There is no reason to abandon that and start using another word. In fact, the smart thing to do would have been to use all sorts of words like ‘forced deportation’, ‘mass killings’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘dispossession’, but use these words in addition to ‘genocide’, NOT in its place. Also, why is Raffi congratulating Gul? He is neither the President nor the Foreign Minister of Armenia!”
One wonders, what’s going on in the Hovannisian households in Los Angeles and Yerevan?
In early 2006, the grandfather Prof. Richard Hovannisian of UCLA, reportedly told RFE/RL that “in some respects Armenia is now an even less democratic state than Turkey, its historical foe regularly castigated by the West for its poor human and civil rights record.”
On July 30, 2007, on the eve of the passage by U.S. House Foreign Relations Committee of the Armenian Genocide resolution 106, Raffi’s son and the elder Hovannisian’s grandson Garin wrote in the Washington Times: “… Bad congressional resolutions might well begin to sound like good Philip Larkin: ‘Sexual intercourse began /In nineteen sixty-three. …/ Between the end of the Chatterley ban /And the Beatles’ first LP.'” This was not the first time that the second junior Hovannisian has ridiculed and poked fun at his martyred Armenian ancestor’s Cause.
And now, his father, Raffi, all too willingly attempts to jeopardize the Armenian Cause in return of personal political gains.
In 1992, the Raffi Hovannisian the Armenians knew and respected was the steadfast Foreign Minister of Armenia who clearly uttered the words Armenian Genocide in Turkey. He was fired by the then president of Armenia, Mr. Levon Ter Petrossyan ironically for having been honest. Then, Raffi remained in Armenia and pursued the objective to become the next president of Armenia. His efforts were blocked. When that didn’t materialize, his father, Prof. Hovannisian slapped Armenia in the face by preferring Turkey as a “better Democracy” than Armenia. What a change for the worse! Then Raffi’s son Garin “punished” Armenia. So if Turkey is a better democracy than Armenia, how come he is not relocating to what is now called Turkey and pursue his political ambitions there by presenting his candidacy for the presidency of Turkey?
By having pandered to Turkey, Hovannisian overdrew on what was left of his political capital in Armenia-Artsakh and around the world. He effectively antagonized literally millions of Armenians. Every year millions of survivors and their descendants flock to the Armenian Genocide monuments in Yerevan and elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands mobilize in marches condemning Turkey’s continued denial of the Genocide and the wholesale forced occupation of the Armenian lands.
Hovannisian has de facto attempted to torpedo the justice pursued by the clear majority of Armenians. But in fact he torpedoed his own political career
The overwhelming majority of Armenians in the homeland and the Diaspora would prefer to see their beloved republics of Armenia and Artsakh transform their soviet-era corrupt bureaucracies into healthy, fully functioning government bodies. But that desire, along with the urge to seek personal political gain, does not give the Hovannisians or anyone else a green light to make erroneous statements, unfairly belittling, and even worse undermine their fledgling new republics and provide damaging ammunition to the enemy.
While current Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan’s lead in Armenia’s presidential elections are not surprising, a local blogger raises concerns about children’s indirect participation in the elections.
It’s now nearly two in the morning and it’s been a tiring day. However, while report after report of violations and falsification comes in, in the seven polling stations I visited today in the Kentron and Arabkir districts of the city, voting was pretty much calm. That’s not to say that violations didn’t occur elsewhere, or even that all was perfect in these particular polling stations, but rather that the environment for voting was peaceful.
Probably the worst violation I saw, although I’m not sure it goes against the electoral code or not, was a number of mothers allowing their children to vote for them.
[…]
While to many – children’s participation in the election in the form of dropping the ballot to the box may sound a violation, I find that participation to be one of the few good things about elections in Armenia.
And that’s not just because when I was a child I (successfully) convinced my Mom to let me drop her ballot in Armenia’s elections. It is because kids find it interesting and fun to participate in what they perceive a decision making.
Actually, I have not seen good arguments against why kids shouldn’t vote. My sister, whose 5-year-old gets angry when she is told she can’t vote, says that her kid changes her mind on the candidates quite often and explains her choice by the candidate’s looks or talks. So the “childish” decision-making doesn’t reflect critical thinking and educated determination some say.
Well, people don’t always – if not most of the time – vote based on much thinking. In Armenia, for instance, one often votes for a candidate because of hating the other candidate due to their regional origin (“I am voting for Levon because Serzh is from Karabakh,” vice verse). Or if they anticipate something for their family (like some of my relatives who would gain power if Levon’s regime returned).
But see, my niece doesn’t make decisions because she hates someone or she will get a government job.
Anyhow, I know that the western ideological hierarchical mindset and its legal framework won’t allow kids to vote in national elections but there must be some kind of autonomy and mock elections that will get young people used to voting.
Field trips, for instance, could be decided in schools through a democratic vote with several options to choose from. Armenia’s schools lack student governments. Well, the university student governments have not been a huge success (usually, exclusively male-dominated and openly partisan) but it doesn’t mean younger kids shouldn’t have the right to some kind of decision-making.
And these are not ‘western’ ideas. Kids often vote in indigenous societies.
Unfortunately, most Armenians don’t have much expectations from the election with current Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan guaranteed to win and his main opponent being the former president.
And although the people are promised false hope all the time, there is nothing false – to borrow from the words of a wise man – about hope.
Taner Akçam, the author of Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur [“The Armenian Issue is Resolved”] states: “We can comfortably assert that in light of these documents, the thesis that what was experienced in 1915 does not fit within the definition of genocide from 1948 is no longer credible.”
By EFNAN ATMACA
It has been exactly one year since the assassination of Hrant Dink. Last Saturday, on this first anniversary, tens of thousands gathered once again “For Hrant, For Justice.” Taner Akçam, whose book, Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur [“The Armenian Issue Is Resolved”] opens up the debate about what occurred in 1915 with new documentation, has also just been published, and Akçam, who dedicates the book to “my brother Hrant, who will always represent the nobility and virtue of having a conscience… Dear Hrant, everything is as we had spoken…,” both memorialized his friend and brought a new viewpoint to the matter. By building connections, one by one, among new records he was able to obtain, Akçam brings new perspectives to the policies which were enforced against Armenians in 1915. In his book, subtitled Policies Against the Armenians During the War Years According to Ottoman Documents, while revealing each of the many telegrams sent by Talat Pasha, Akcam states that the deportation of 1915 was the last stage of the Turkification policies of that period. In particular, supported by primary sources, he explains how this project was personally developed well in advance by Talat Pasha and put into action through the efforts of the Teşkilat-I Mahsusa (Special Organization). One of the most crucial documents in the book, the one which gives the book its title, is a telegram from Talat Pasha: “The Armenian issue is resolved. There’s no need to stain the nation and the government with extra atrocities.”
Q: The events of 1915 are a huge controversy. The opposing sides of the controversy continually claim to possess and then publish important documents, and argue about whether or not to open up the Ottoman archives …On the other side, there are others who state that in writing about history a “document cult” shouldn’t be created and that the process shouldn’t be reduced to a war of documents. Meanwhile your book is completely based upon documentation…What and how can records tell us anything?
A: If you are being open and honest, historical records can easily provide a general framework for how events occurred. Still, you need to distinguish here between two separate points. First of all, the main issue is the frame, the model you are creating when you are gathering these documents. Secondly is the question of how much do the records you’re presenting truly reflect reality. If someone possesses an understanding of history that is nationalistic and racist, the history they write will reflect that, and by discriminating in the choice of records, they will try to prove that position. Additionally, the records you find and use are products of the ideological and political beliefs of the period in which they were produced. It is for that reason that the question “What is the truth?” is the subject of such serious argument in historical scholarship. One thing is certain, though. The thing called “the truth” is not a thing, not a treasure that is buried somewhere in the ground and it is up to us to dig it up. For example, if a hundred years from now, you were to research the bombing of the Umut Kitabevi (Umut Publishing House) in Şemdinli in 2005, you would find plenty of state documents asserting that the publishing house had been bombed by the PKK. [Translator’s note: The bookstore was bombed by army officers, but law enforcement forces produced some documents to claim that it was the PKK that bombed the bookstore.]
Keeping these two things in mind, nevertheless the place to start is the historic records. You have no other choice. The important thing is to maintain a critical eye when examining any particular document or body of documents. First of all, in order to defend your thesis, you need to present a series of records that is both comprehensive and widespread. Secondly, there should be a continuous “balance and control” relationship between the records you are presenting and the argument you are trying to make. This is precisely what makes history a social science. The use of deep and varied sources of material along with total honesty are the two crucial elements of historical study.
Q: How important are the records in this book?
A: They are the records of a government and a party that managed to deport and kill Armenians in 1915. For the most part, they consist of coded telegrams that were sent by the Ministry of the Interior to the regional offices. When you consider the difficulty of communication in that era through postal services and the like, the importance of these records is even less in doubt. In order to maintain high volume and speedy communications with the regions, the government [at that time] had established a special bureau and by way of that office managed to send short and frank orders to the regional offices. For this reason, these records provide a primary source of information about a party and a state that planned a deportation and killings.
Q: Is it possible to state that, in view of the records which the book brings to light, there is no longer any doubt that what happened was a genocide?
A: Yes, we can comfortably assert that in light of these documents, the thesis that what was experienced in 1915 does not fit within the definition of genocide from 1948 is no longer credible and can be dismissed. The officials of the Turkish government, who view the Ottoman records as the only reliable source, will see that our government records also show that the Union and Progress party followed a policy that endeavored to destroy the Armenians. Nevertheless, there are those who will deny this, and they will continue to deny it. There are many people today, still, who do not believe that the Jews were annihilated by the Nazis. I need to add this: In Turkey, particularly among those who defend the official state position and who claim to be historians, you will hear extremely ignorant comments like “Where is the document to show genocide? Prove it.” Genocide does not have [is not proved with] a single document. The holocaust against the Jews didn’t consist of a document here and a document there. What history and the social sciences do, or should do, is to illustrate the chain of events by way of an accumulated ball of knowledge from as detailed a record of documents as can be produced. As the documents which I published show, how to label the events that are described is a conclusion that you make based upon the documentation. In other words, genocide is identified by a certain picture that is revealed. You give the picture that name, which is why the picture you present has to be created by way of hundreds of tiny pieces of information. As I state in my book, in trying to understand and describe what occurred in 1915, I did not have a special purpose to “prove” genocide. I find this kind of approach to be deficient and wrong and more properly the duty of a prosecutor or judge. However, after the publication of these documents, I know that those who claim that what occurred in 1915 cannot be called a genocide do not have much more to say.
Q: Almost all of the documents you obtained reveal that the action, in your words “to cleanse Anatolia of Armenians,” was taken by the personal orders of Talat Pasha through the party apparatus, not the state government. Could this be the start of a new period for the Armenian problem?
A: It absolutely should start a new period. Still, you need to remember that these telegrams were sent to the regional offices by Talat Pasha under the aegis of the Ministry of the Interior. While some of the telegrams bear his signature, others do not. Those were signed by the director of the office. These are state documents, not party documents. Nevertheless, when it comes to 1915, I believe and defend the notion that it is extremely important to make the distinction between state and party. As much as the state was taken over by the [Union and Progress] party, the same party which defended a dictatorship had rendered many of the government functions impotent. Every action that the party took was taken by way of government channels. Still, within governmental organs, there were points of resistance against what the Party was doing. If you make a state-party distinction, you begin to see and understand that there were very many honest state officials during that period, who resisted and opposed the murders committed by the Union and Progress party. In fact, -some of the records are the results of the efforts of some honest state officials to have the events recorded within state documents.
Q: What sort of results, both negative and positive, can be expected if Turkey acknowledges the Armenian genocide?
A: There isn’t a single state that I know of or recognize that has been harmed by acknowledging past wrongdoings. Is there any country that you can name which was beset with problems because it faced its history? None! Quite the contrary, those regimes that had tried to cover up history, that had denied the cruelties and injustices that occurred in their past, ended up facing very serious problems and were even demolished. Turkey will only mature and gather praise once it has accepted a historical injustice. A Turkey that manages to face the historical injustices of its past will be able to take its deserved place among world nations with greater ease. So acceptance of the injustices in the past will not only not produce any negative result, it will do the opposite.
I would like to add that there isn’t just one way to face history and acknowledge an injustice. I would like to point out here that there is a difference between scholarship and politics. As a social scientist you may not be very convincing if, in light of all the records and information available, you use some term other than “genocide” to identify the events of 1915, but a government has many alternatives at its disposal when confronting history and acknowledging historic injustices. At the top of the list would be to stop referring to those who discuss it as “traitors,” to stop killing them or dragging them through criminal prosecutions. Freedom of thought and democracy are the preconditions for acknowledging one’s history. Secondly, you will need to develop a language that describes what occurred as morally unacceptable. A language that denounces and condemns murders is absolutely crucial. After that, in harmony with this new language, you need to take some steps that heal this injustice, that work towards fixing it. Here there are dozens, if not hundreds, of ways to go about this. Our politicians need to see that the matter isn’t just about getting stuck on one single word. They need to approach the problem from a rich and wide net of possibilities.
Q: If we look at the matter from the perspective of the [Armenian] Diaspora…in light of these new found documents, what kinds of steps might they take?
A: There is a very misguided belief in Turkey. Unfortunately, both the state and politicians as well as some progressive and democratic intellectuals spread this mistaken belief and information. According to them, the Armenian Diaspora consists of a uniform, monolithic block, and there are some serious differences between the Diaspora and the state of Armenia. According to the beliefs of those who hold this position, the real problem is with the Diaspora; the Armenians of Armenia take a different position on things. This is simply not true. There is no singular, homogeneous, monolithic Diaspora , nor are there any serious differences between the Diaspora and Armenia regarding this subject. The Armenians of the Diaspora are as diverse in opinion as Turkey is divided into thousands of positions. …Among them there are dozens of opinions and positions. I believe that my book in Turkish will not only positively affect Armenian circles but also will have a positive effect in increasing the numbers of those in Turkey who will want to resolve our differences in a peaceful and brotherly way through direct contact.
Q: At the end of the book you state, “What we need is to recognize the reality that we are face to face with an action that is morally, conscientiously unacceptable and to develop a language that expresses that.” What do you mean by this new language?
A: The language of conflict differs from the language of friendship, mutual respect and peace. The language that dominates the administration and mainstream media in Turkey today is one that views the Armenians as the enemy, as a traitor and the Other. It’s a racist and aggressive language. The administration and mainstream media continue to conduct the discourse around what happened in 1915 with a wartime mindset. For that reason, historians like me, who think critically, are branded as traitors, and they organize campaigns against us. Hrant Dink was murdered as a direct result of this language and this mindset.
First of all, we need to put an end to this wartime mindset and to this aggressive language. There are many within Armenian circles who see the problem with the same point of view and use the same aggressive language. We have to establish and develop a humane language that doesn’t view Armenians and Turks as enemies, which doesn’t brand the other as a traitor, doesn’t demean the other, and views Armenians and Turks with respect. Armenians and Turks will be able to construct their future upon this foundation of mutual respect and friendship.
Q: Another of way asking this is, what steps need to be taken so that the matter in question is resolved through democratic means?
A: Prior to anything else happening, the borders between the two countries need to be opened without any preconditions, and diplomatic relations should be initiated. It is very difficult to explain how Turkey can have no objection to maintaining diplomatic relations with Syria, a country with a population of 10 million which has protected Abdullah Öcalan for years and depicts Hatay as falling within their own borders, and yet reject diplomatic relations with Armenia, a country of 3 million. First unconditional diplomatic relations, then the opening of the borders, and then the rest will come. Additionally, Turkey has to see that this matter isn’t just about history. Turkey has to see that it has everything to do with how [Turkey] behaves towards minorities today.
Q: How do you evaluate the Hrant Dink assassination’s effect on resolving the Armenian issue? In particular, would you characterize the way society embraced Dink after the assassination, and the way it lead to openly discussing the Armenian issue, as a positive thing?
A: Hrant Dink was the most beautiful gift that Turkey could present to Armenia and the Diaspora. Hrant was the most important person who could bring these two countries, these two peoples, together. When we were in Yerevan in 2005, I used to tease Hrant that if I were the Turkish government, I’d have him appointed the symbolic, spiritual ambassador to Armenia. Turkey killed its ambassador; it broke the olive branch that it could have extended. What’s worse is that the ones who broke this olive branch are organized within the police and gendarmerie forces. Those officials who knew about the assassination, who planned and directed it, have not only not been punished, they have been rewarded and promoted.
I can’t state enough how important it is for society to embrace Hrant Dink. Within him they [Turkish society] have discovered a dynamic, a potential to bring these two nations together. Both the Armenians in America, who are cursed as “Diaspora” in Turkey, and the people in Istanbul shed tears for Hrant. Hrant brought everyone with a heart together. He’s become the symbol for what needs to be done to resolve this problem. We must build a monument for him and memorialize him.
Q: Could the policy taken by the AKP (Justice and Development Party of Turkey, now in control of the Administration) to act in harmony with an EU framework be a positive step towards resolving this problem?
A: I don’t believe that the AKP has any thoughts on this subject. They don’t give even the slightest indication of having any thoughts. Either they don’t know anything about the subject, or they think it is enough to continue promoting the traditional lies. In fact, if the AKP actually followed their Islamic roots, they could make some serious headway on the subject. There’s only one thing I could ask of the AKP, and that’s to take their Islamic roots seriously.
ERMENI MESELESI HALLOLUNMUŞTUR [THE ARMENIAN ISSUE IS RESOLVED]
Taner Akçam, Iletişim Publications, 2008, 339 pages, 19.5 YTL
It was Demirbas’s interest in others that led me to seek him out. I had heard from a friend in Istanbul that the mayor of the central neighborhood of Diyarbakir had published a map of the city in Armenian. One hundred fifty years ago, Armenians and other Christians made up about half of Diyarbakir’s population, but as an ethnic Armenian myself, I was astonished that a mayor in a Turkish town had done something to acknowledge this history. Most old Armenian sites in Turkey are either abandoned altogether or labeled with signs and explanations that offer roundabout explanations without ever mentioning that a particular site was Armenian. (Even the much-lauded official renovation of an Armenian church in Van relied on the geographical term “Anatolian.”) In Turkey, the “Armenian question” — whether the massacre of the Ottoman Armenian population during World War I was a state campaign — is at least as taboo as the Kurdish issue.
When Demirbas learned of my ethnic background, he took out a stack of about a hundred tourist brochures describing Diyarbakir, printed in Armenian, and handed them to me. “Please give these to Armenians in the United States,” he said. He also showed me the same brochure in Assyrian, Arabic, Russian and Turkish. “Why is it,” he asked by way of example, “that tourists who visit Topkapi Palace in Istanbul can get an audio listening guide in English, French, Spanish, German or Italian, but when I publish a small tourist brochure in Armenian, as a welcoming gesture to Armenian tourists who want to visit their ancestral home, I am accused of committing a crime?” (The brochures are among the many projects for which Demirbas has been accused of misusing municipal resources.) We spent the rest of the afternoon touring an area that Demirbas calls “the Streets of Culture Project.” Tucked among a cluster of alleyways in his district, several ancient structures remind visitors of the Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Jews and other groups who once populated a neighborhood that is still known locally as the infidel quarter. Demirbas calls it the “Armenian quarter,” at least while talking to me, and has drafted a proposal to undertake a major renovation of the area and its monuments.
“So many civilizations lived in the Sur district over millennia,” he says. “Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Nestorians, Jews, Turks, Hanafi, Shafi’i, Alevi, Yezidi, traces of Sabihi” — occasionally he lengthens his list by repeating groups he has already named — “all these different beliefs coexisted in the Sur district of Diyarbakir. The more we lose this multicultural side of ourselves, the more we become one another’s enemies.”
Listening to him, I felt sure that he meant it, but also sure that he knew he was undermining the nationalist foundations of the Turkish Republic. At first, I wondered if he was using Diyarbakir’s other ethnicities to somehow soften the blow of his support of Kurdish cultural rights. But supporting the Armenian issue would hardly win him friends in Turkey, at least not friends with power.
