Study the Armenian Genocide with confidence, Ara Sarafian suggests

id=3D4CD51A31-3FF3-352C-2F99C1E0C1BEA575&pg=3D 2

by Ara Sarafian

Published: Thursday December 18, 2008

Sir:

On November 26, 2008, Hurriyet Daily News published an article based
on an interview titled, "Sarafian: Focus on the Diaspora." This
interview followed a conference I participated in organized by the
International Hrant Dink Foundation at Bosphorus University, Istanbul,
on Adana in the late Ottoman period.

The Hurriyet Daily News article caused anxiety in some Armenian
circles because of the apparent harshness of my statements as they had
been rendered in the Turkish press. The most forceful response came
from my detractors in Internet chat groups.

Given the interest created by the Hurriyet Daily News article in some
Armenian circles, I would like to disclose the substance of my
interview for your information. Below are the key points:

1. Context: Turkey today

Turkey is going through a period of change. It is true that many of
the old anti-Armenian voices are still around, and one can still see
restrictions on free speech in Turkey. However, there are also
significant alternative voices being heard from academics,
journalists, lawyers, diplomats, and ordinary people. This
multiplicity of voices seems to be part of the democratization process
of Turkey.

Twenty years ago Turkish state intellectuals were denying the Armenian
Genocide by saying that nothing happened in 1915; if there were
killings, they were Turks killed by Armenians; that Armenian Genocide
allegations were the product of Armenian terrorism or a Soviet
conspiracy to destabilize Turkey. The official Turkish thesis on the
Armenian Genocide was prescribed by the state with no alternative
voices or dissent allowed.

Today, the Armenian Genocide debate has already shifted inside Turkey.
It is now quite normal to hear that "terrible things happened to
Armenians in 1915", that Armenians were poorly treated, that there
were massacres, etc. Turkish citizens are also more and more aware of
the contribution of Armenians to Ottoman-Turkish identity and
culture. Most of the protagonists making a case for the gradual
rehabilitation of Armenians are Turkish liberal intellectuals. This
change has been part of a process that is still in progress.

Armenian intellectuals can play a positive role in engaging
Turkish-Armenian debates as they open up by setting the tone for
better understanding of a shared past, including practical ways to
address the legacy of 1915. A sensitive Armenian approach can foster a
positive outcome in Turkey, while a coarse response will close minds
and play into the hands of Turkish chauvinists.

2. Diaspora-Armenia scholarship

Over the past 25 years, practically all cutting-edge scholarship on
the Armenian Genocide has taken place outside of Armenia. A good part
of this work was done by diaspora Armenians, and many non-Armenians
were nurtured or benefited by the efforts of diaspora Armenians. The
diaspora is at the core of the Armenian Genocide debate. If Prime
Minister Erdogan’s government is looking for an engaging strategy to
resolve the Armenian Genocide issue, it has to address the diaspora as
much as the Armenian government.

3. Partisan scholarship, prosecutorial approach

Our understanding of the Armenian Genocide has been influenced by
partisan scholarship because a number of academic institutions and
political parties in Armenian communities, such as in the United
States or Great Britain, have nurtured a prosecutorial approach to the
subject. Consequently, some important elements of the events of 1915
have been distorted. The main thrust of the prosecutorial approach has
been the assertion that the genocide of Armenians was executed with
the thoroughness of the Nazi Holocaust, and that all Turks and Kurds
were involved in the genocidal process. This approach is best
exemplified by Vahakn Dadrian’s The
< 6?ie=3DUTF8&tag=3Darmenrepor-20&link_code= 3Das3&camp=3D211189&creative=3D373489& creativeASIN=3D1571816666>
History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to
Anatolia to the Caucasus.’ border=3D0>

4. The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust

The Armenian Genocide is not the same as the Holocaust. The Young
Turks did not have the apparatus to carry out a genocide on par with
the Holocaust. It is also a fact that many Ottoman officials,
including governors, sub-governors, military personnel, police chiefs,
and gendarmes saved thousands of Armenians during the Genocide. Most
Armenians from the province of Adana, for example, were not
killed. This very basic fact is elided in the works of prominent
Armenian historians. There are other examples too. The "Holocaust
model" of the Armenian Genocide is fundamentally flawed.

5. Archives

Key "Armenian archives" on the Armenian Genocide remain closed to
critical scholars. This matter concerns all scholars and should be
subject to scrutiny. The most important examples are the archives of
the Jerusalem Patriarchate, which include materials from Ottoman
Turkey related to the Genocide. Partisan scholars have used these
archives in their work, though their assertions can not be checked. In
the 1980s the Zoryan Institute collected the private papers of
individuals in the diaspora, yet the materials have remained under
lock and key. Such standards should not be acceptable within our
communities. We should object to them as we object to any manipulation
of Ottoman archives in Turkey today.

6. Diaspora and Turkey

As Turkey continues to examine various taboos, more and more Turks are
discovering their human, material, and historical ties to
Armenians. If Turkey continues to develop in this direction, with
freedom of thought and expression, there is no reason why diaspora
Armenians cannot be brought into public and academic debates in
Turkey. The Armenian diaspora is historically rooted in Turkey.

7. Playing the victims of the Armenian Genocide

The present generation of Armenians cannot assume the victim role when
discussing Turkish-Armenian relations. Given the seriousness of the
subject, academics and community activists should be expected to be
well informed about their subject matter and give fair consideration
to all parties. The Genocide issue is not a simple question of
justice for Armenians, but a case of justice for everyone. This
attitude is essential for the peaceful resolution of past
differences. There is no room for ignorance and bigotry.

8. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression in Armenia

Recent events have shown once more that freedom of expression is not
something that is universally respected in Armenia. In the past weeks
we have heard of the brutal beating of Edik Baghdasaryan, chief editor
of Hetq and the president of the Investigative Journalists’
Association of Armenia. His beating was preceded by attempts to
harass and intimidate him with impunity. This is not the first time
that people have been intimidated and beaten for their critical views
in Armenia. In my opinion this lack of freedom has restricted critical
research in Armenia on the Armenian Genocide.

9. Joint commission

Prime Minister Erdogan has suggested that a commission of historians
should be formed by the Turkish and Armenian governments to examine
the events of 1915. I would propose an alternative as follows: (1)
Relevant archives in Turkey should be open to researchers, with
special procedures to allow them ready access to records; (2)
Independent groups of specialists from different disciplines should be
funded to collaborate on specific projects related to 1915; (3) The
work of such groups should be open to the scrutiny of third parties;
(4) Academic excellence should be the governing criteria in putting
research teams together, not ethnicity, citizenship, or horse-trading
among Turkish and Armenian bureaucrats; (5) The examination of
archival records should not be limited to Ottoman records but include
other archives outside of Turkey.