`Turks and Armenians should try to understand each other’
Interview by Aydogan Vatandas

Interview by Aydogan Vatandas
22 July 2007

He was the US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1915, during the
troubles with the Armenians.

He witnessed how the Turks, desperately hoping to stop further losses,
and even regain some of their territory and prior prestige, finally
succumbed to German influence and were dragged to collapse.

The ambassador’s name was Henry Morgenthau.

He was a German Jew, who arrived in New York as an immigrant when he
was 10.

He was successful in the new country, and through his eventual rise in
prominence, he gained President Woodrow Wilson’s trust and
respect.This ability to gain the confidence of others was
characteristic of Ambassador Morgenthau, and greatly contributed to
his experience as an ambassador in Turkey.

Despite his ties with Turkish leaders, though, his experiences,
recorded first in his diary and then in his book, `Ambassador
Morgenthau’s Story,’ regarding the political environment and the tense
situation with Armenia, led him to change his opinion of his Young
Turk associates.

The ambassador’s book became a key source for those who acknowledgean
Armenian `genocide,’ as it indicated that the government, hiding
behind World War I, had planned and carried out an elimination of the
Armenian minority.

Ambassador Morgenthau’s book was published in Turkish for the
firsttime in 2005 by Belge Publishing Co. Turkish readers can now
judge his words for themselves.

Many things have been written about the book from different points of
view.

Professor H. Lowry in his book `The Story Behind Ambassador
Morgenthau’s Story’ (1990), stated that some of the explanations and
arguments in the ambassador’ s book were inconsistent with the
official reports and telegrams that the ambassador sent to the US
secretary of state, and inconsistent with entriesin the diary that he
wrote during the 26 months he spent in Turkey. Lowry also claimed that
US journalist Burton J. Hendrick wrote the book.

Approximately half Ambassador Morgenthau’s book focuses on the
relationships the ambassador developed during his time in
?stanbul. This includes his record of how the Ittihat Terakki
government became engaged with that of the Germans as, at that time,
each believed that their own imperialist aims would be supported by
joining forces with the other. The other half of the book contains
details of events around the time of the Armenian controversy that
Ambassador Morgenthau personally witnessed or that were reported to
him from his consuls, Christian missionaries and others in different
parts of Turkey.

We talked with Dr. Pamela Steiner, great grandchild of Ambassador
Morgenthau, about the memoirs and her approach regarding the current
Turkish/Armenian relationship, at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
of Harvard University,where she is a senior fellow.

Can you please tell us about your family roots?

My mother’s parents were Maurice Wertheim and Alma Morgenthau. Almawas
one of Ambassador Morgenthau’s three daughters and the sister of Henry
Morgenthau, Jr., who became secretary of the treasury under President
Franklin Roosevelt.

Alma’s (first) husband, Maurice Wertheim, was a banker, art collector,
chess player, sportsman and remarkable philanthropist. Alma and
Maurice had three daughters. The eldest, Josephine, was my mother. She
worked to ban the testing of nuclear weapons and halt the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. My father, Ralph Pomerance, a second
generation Polish/Lithuanian Jew, was a fine architect.

Can you tell us about yourself? What do you do at Harvard?

As a senior fellow at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, I direct
the fledgling project, `Inter-Communal Violence and Reconciliation.’
Primarily my work aims to contribute to improving the relationship
between the Turkish and Armenian societies. My background includes
prior work on the relationships between Germans and Jews, and Israelis
and Palestinians. I have a psychotherapy practice, which is private,
not connected to Harvard — I specialize in seeing people with
psychological trauma

How are you carrying out this work with Turks and Armenians?

My colleagues and I — people rarely do this work alone — invite
individuals who are influential members of both Turkish and Armenian
civil societies to participate in confidential dialogue workshops. We
structure the workshops to enable participants to learn about each
other’s perspectives and hear about each other’s experiences regarding
the relationship of the two communities. After the workshops are over,
participants may talk publicly about what they learned, but they have
agreed not to reveal the identities of the other participants even
then. But, sometimes, at the end of a workshop, participants decide to
collaborate on a joint statement or some other project.

Facilitators for these dialogue workshops, such as myself, do not
state historical facts or offer opinions about facts. The job of
facilitators is to enable participants to talk productively about
their communities’ history of hurts and losses and their communities’
basic needs, fears, concerns and hopes in relation to the community
with which they are in conflict. The next step inthe workshop is for
participants to see if they can contrive a solution that addresses the
basic needs, fears, concerns and hopes of both communities.

The participants, not the facilitators, do state the facts, and the
characterizations and meaning of those facts, as they know and
understand them. I have an educated lay person’s opinion about the
issues in the Turkish/Armenian relationship, but it is unimportant in
this context. What does matter very much is that, while facilitating,
I am even-handed and am perceived by participants to be so.

I am well aware, of course, that the use of `genocide’ in the context
of the Armenian/Turkish relationship has an enormous but different
meaning to each community and different meanings to different
sub-groups within each community.

I might ask participants in a workshop to discuss the importance of
these different meanings with each other.

But your great-grand father did not use the term `genocide’in his
book, right?

Yes, that’s true. The word `genocide’ did not existwhen my great
grandfather wrote his book. He wrote some now famous descriptions of
what he witnessed and learned. Here are two examples from his book
that we are discussing,` Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’:
`Talaat’s attitude toward the Armenians was summed up in the proud
boast which he made to his friends: `I have accomplished more toward
solving the Armenian problem in three months than Abdul Hamid
accomplished in thirty years!” (p. 234)

`From him (Dr. Lepsius, a German missionary) Enver scarcely concealed
the official purpose. Dr. Lepsius was simply staggered by his
frankness, for Enver told him in so many words that they at last had
an opportunity to rid themselves of the Armenians and that they
proposed to use it.’ (p. 235).

What is your impression about the book generally?

It’s such an extraordinary close up history about a fascinating
period. It’s the sum of the many aspects of the book that I find so
remarkable. He knew everybody and was an acute observer. There’s a
tremendous amount ofdetail about his relations with the diplomatic
community and the Young Turks. He did not go to ?stanbul aiming to do
something in particular for the Turks or Armenians over and above what
an ambassador does. He did not arrive with a personal interest in the
Armenians. He got along very well with the Turks and talks about what
he admired in them. He stresses how sincere the Young Turks were
initially in their aim to put Turkey on a democratic path. He notes
how they failed at this and how this failure partly led these leaders
to revert to what he characterized as much more `primitive’
governance.

As one of the top people, he bore witness to the fate of the
Armenians, and protested about it widely. It was also emotionally
painful for both him andhis wife to witness. He records his efforts to
stop the killings of Armenians and how his failure led him to leave
?stanbul.

Yet, at the same time, he conveyed a deep understanding of the Turks’
struggles. He understood how the Turkish leaders felt humiliated by
their losses of territory. He saw and was horrified by the suffering
of ordinary Turks during this period, as a result of their leaders’
attempts to regain by going to war that lost territory and
prestige. He reported in detail all he learned about how the Germans
manipulated and drew the Turks into the war. However, I understand
that contemporary historians consider that he overrated the influence
of the Germans, though I believe that most agree that German influence
was great.

So why then does nobody mention the responsibility Germany bears for
the incidents that took place in 1915?

This is a very important question, as is the question of
responsibility more generally, though the word would need to be
defined first. It would be interesting to discuss this question with
historians, which of course I am not, but also with group
psychologists, which I am. But it isn’t true that no one mentions
German responsibility if `responsibility’ is understood as Germany’s
exercising influence on and acting in complicity with the commitment
of certain acts. For example, Taner Akcam’s `A Shameful Act’ and
Donald Bloxham’s `The Great Game of Genocide’ both discuss Germany’s
role. And one of my great grandfather’s book’s chapters is actually
entitled `Germany forces Turkey into War.’

Whatever German responsibility was, though, does not ease the
responsibilities of the Ittihat Terakki Party.

It has been claimed that the book was not written by your great
grand-grandfather, but by Burton J. Hendrick, the famous journalist of
the time. Is that real?

I don’t know that. But I know that Hendrick stayed at my grandfather’s
house and they worked together on the book. My grandfather had a
diary. In the book he mentions when he is quoting from the diary. My
grandfather was not a trained writer. So it is very natural to get
some professional support, a ghost writer. But you very easily notice
his `voice’ while reading the book.

Is Armenian identity constructed on hostility towards Turks? Is this
something healthy?

Some Armenians feel hostile to Turks as a whole. Some Armenians feel
hostile not only to the Turks of that time, but also to Turks today
who do not know and do not acknowledge what the Turks did to the
Armenians in those years. But not all Armenians today feel the same
about all Turks, although for perhapsall Armenians the memories of the
past are very painful. Their pain increases when people minimize those
hurts.

So what do you think should be done?

I think 1915-23 were particularly terrible years and there has been an
important gap between the two sets of communities since then. My
understanding is that most members of these two sets of communities
don’t now know each other.

They need to know each other. What happened in 1915-1923 should be
discussed today, and they all should gain greater understanding of
each other.

What else?

We have already been talking about conflict resolution and
reconciliation processes. One element in the process is the creation
of public knowledge of what happened. The past must be dealt
with. This includes, of course, the historical facts and the different
narratives incorporating those facts, the different meanings of those
facts to the different communities. There must be greater such
knowledge and understanding of each other.

A second element is public acknowledgment of those facts and
perspectives.

Not only do both communities need to tell what happened, and how they
understand it, but each party must acknowledge the other’s narrative
— assuming they believe that the other is being sincere. Such a
process can lead to deep understanding and empathy, and eventually to
solutions.

I believe that the achievement of these two elements, truth and
acknowledgment … would make an enormous, positive difference in
theArmenian/Turkish relationship.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress