CASCADING TOWARD THE 91ST ANNIVERSARY? THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 1915
Dr Harry Hagopian

Assyrian International News Agency
April 24 2006

London — Armenians across all five continents are getting ready this
week to commemorate the 91st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

With the noteworthy achievements of 2005 now behind them, it is time
to think both tactically and strategically of the 24th April events –
not only for this week, but also for the longer-term policy of the
years ahead. After all, Armenians are nine critical years shy of a
century in order to break through the psychological barrier of denial.

Image In this context, events in Turkey as of late have also been
quite relevant. After all, this country – whose predecessor regime was
culpable for those atrocities but which remains to date a bastion of
rapacious denial – has taken some grudging steps toward acknowledging
the existence of a “problem” rather than simply blotting it out of its
collective psyche. In fact, having applied to join the European Union,
this post-Ottoman republic should accept not only EU democratic norms
and values, but also the requirement to guarantee the fundamental
human rights of all its citizens.

True, Atom Egoyan’s film Ararat was shown last week on the private
Turkish Kanalturk television station with less censorship than has been
the case in the past. It is equally true that a Turkish court dropped
charges against four Turkish journalists (Hasan Cemal, Ismet Berkan,
Haluk Sahin and Erol Katircioglu) who had been charged with writing
articles in which they criticised a judicial decision to delay a
conference last year entitled ‘Ottoman Armenians during the decline of
the empire: Issues of scientific responsibility and democracy’. These,
along with other small paces, have been positive although they have
stopped short of going any further in translating them from tactical
orientations to strategic decisions. For instance, while dropping
charges against those four journalists, the court decided nonetheless
to proceed with the trial of Mehmet Murat Kadri Belge, a columnist
for the Radikal newspaper. Besides, just as with Orhan Pamuk’s case,
the Turkish government did not address itself to repealing the articles
in the Turkish Penal Code that would allow such charges to be made in
the first place (Amnesty International UK is presently campaigning for
the abolition of Article 301), but applied insincere interpretations
to try and satisfy a Western EU-friendly audience whilst at the same
time not budging away from its own stolid political standpoints.

Let us be clear that there is no shortage of historians, academics,
institutes, lawyers and writers worldwide – not least the International
Association of Genocide Scholars – who have acknowledged the genocidal
nature of the atrocities meted out against Armenians during WWI. So
the problems – and thereby solutions – inherent to denial cannot
solely be traced to historical issues. On the contrary, they are
overpoweringly political. It is self-evident that many countries –
not least the USA or the UK – would not wish to upset Turkey as a NATO
ally with a substantive military presence and with many bases in a
geo-strategic but volatile region. The same applies for Israel. When
the then Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres publicly stated in
April 2001 to the Turkish Daily News that the Armenian experience was
not tantamount to genocide, he was thinking of buttressing the strong
military ties and ongoing economic interests that Israel enjoys with
Turkey despite occasional complaints about Islamism. No wonder then
that Yisrael Charny, director of the Jerusalem-based Institute on
the Holocaust and Genocide, reproved publicly this wily politician
for misrepresenting the facts.

It is true that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by some
parliaments and councils indicates a painstaking but relentless
momentum forward. But Armenians should now consider working with
the younger Turkish academicians who have also been researching this
chapter of Turkish history. Moreover, they should be careful not to
be perceived as a token anti-Muslim (and by analogy anti-Turkish)
force, or be used in the brinkmanship between Turkey and the EU as
a convenient pretext for barring Turkish entry into the European club.

After all, Turkey has major challenges today that make it fall foul
of accession anyway – namely, the Kurdish issue that has recently
flared up again in the violence-wracked southeast region that is now
a homeland for a large Kurdish minority, as well as the refusal by
Turkey to open its ports and airports to Cypriot-registered vessels
despite a customs’ union agreement. Turkey also has economic woes,
one year short of parliamentary elections, with high public debt,
high current-account deficit and tax breaks that are contrary to IMF
recommendations – as evidenced by the recent spat over the appointment
of the central bank governor.

I believe Armenians should re-configure their strategic interests
discursively, with more reason and less intuition. Would the
acquisition by Armenians (and other long-standing minorities such
as Assyrians) in Turkey of EU passports, for example, not help them
in their legal and functional quests? Should those Turks who helped
rescue Armenians during the genocide not be honoured too, in the
same way that Israelis honour brave Gentiles who saved Jews during
the Holocaust? After all, these too are intrepid people who upheld
the honour of the Turkish nation when their government was destroying
its own Armenian citizens. Focusing on such a moral issue would prove
that many Armenians are certainly not visceral anti-Turks, and could
also turn into an exposed embarrassment for Turkey.

Geopolitics in the 21st century is not based on high decibels
and angst-ridden feelings alone. Rather, it is based on strategic
thought and vested interests. Could Armenians not invest in their
resourcefulness to excel in this arena too?