MARK GRIGORYAN: WE ARE NOT READY FOR TURKISH RECOGNITION
April 20, 2015 13:36
EXCLUSIVE
On the threshold of the Armenian Genocide Centennial, Mediamax
continues a series of interviews with the intellectuals of Armenia
and the Diaspora. It is an attempt to collect opinions as to whether
the Armenian Genocide Centennial will serve a certain “New Beginning”
for Armenians or not.
Our today’s interlocutor is journalist Mark Grigoryan.
-You lived most of your life in Armenia but spent around ten years
in London. You have been to many Armenian communities and have often
visited Istanbul. What differences between Armenia and Diaspora do
not allow us to come to terms on critical issues?
– To tell the truth, I don’t know what “critical issues” mean. If we
are talking about the policy conducted by Armenia, I believe it’s
natural that we are not coming to terms. People living in Armenia
feel that policy on their own back. It’s hard to imagine a reality in
which, say, Armenians of the U.S. or France share the same perceptions
and approaches.
– Should we aspire to have a “common denominator?” Would it not be
better to have several clearly formed views and attempt to build
bridges between them?
– Want it or not, we will have varying views. It is dictated by human
nature. There are other important factors affecting the perception of
the Genocide as well. For example, roughly 90% of American Armenians
are descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors. Their number is high
in Armenia as well but they will hardly make 90%.
During the USSR era, until 1965 when it was forbidden to speak
about Genocide in Armenia, this issue was highly politicized in the
Diaspora. Thus, Armenian parties were trying to present the issue as
theirs – Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) it its way, Armenian
Democratic Liberal (ADL) Party and Social Democrat Hunchakian Party
(SDHP) – in theirs. And attempts by various groups to monopolize the
Genocide issue is one of the outcomes of this issue’s politicization.
– If we put aside the sensory perception, have we framed what we will
do in case of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide?
After all, what claims do we have?
– For some, the recognition means acknowledgement of their family pain
and restoration of the dignity of their victims. For some, seeking
vengeance is the first and foremost goal, and there are people who
want to regain the property they lost.
But let’s assume Erdogan says the following on April 24: “We admit
it was Genocide and 1.5 million innocent Armenians suffered. We bow
before their memory.”
I am sure that most of Armenians are not ready to accept it. Many of
them are not ready for Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
There are even people who are not ready to accept the fact that 80
thousand Armenians reside in Turkey whose views should be respected
and whose lives should be taken care of.
We are not ready to admit that the political recognition of the
Armenian Genocide should be interlinked with other acknowledgements
as well. Over 20 countries have recognized the Armenian Genocide. Many
people around the world already know that if you are an Armenian then
you represent a nation that has gone through Genocide. The reality
has changed but we are yet not prepared for it. We must understand
what we will be doing on April 25.
-Do you think the Centenary might serve a new beginning to ponder
over those issues?
-I would like it to become a beginning for such a change and for us to
discuss in our society – in Armenia and in the Diaspora – and to try
to understand where we are standing now and where we should head to.
Let various scenarios be discussed but what matters is not to lag
behind the reality.
– Along with a number of other Armenian intellectuals, you came
together in Lisbon in October 2014 on the initiative of Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation to discuss vision for Armenia in a century. Is
it possible to understand through such discussions where we are
heading to?
– This meeting clearly pointed at the fact that the issues of Armenians
living in various countries greatly vary. We cannot put the issues
of Russian Armenians on par with, say, Argentine Armenians.
Of course, there are also common problems, such as the issue of
identity. We need to understand how Armenian identity needs to be
shaped in the changing world. At the same time, for example, the
Russian Armenians face political problems that absolutely do not
raise interest among the Argentine Armenians.
Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not the only issue of
Armenians. There are also other issues that should be discussed and
brought up.
– Can you pick out those identity elements, which are important for
all Armenians? Language, including the preservation of the Western
Armenian, is probably the first and foremost element.
– Western Armenian is one of our greatest treasures. It’s a language
in which millions of people speak and think and there is also beautiful
literature in it.
Of course, it would be naïve to think that the Armenian community
in Russia should have its input in the preservation of the Western
Armenian from this day on, but it should realize the importance of
taking common steps.
Today there are more Armenian schools and churches in Istanbul than in
Tbilisi, despite the differences in our ties with Georgia and Turkey.
One of the reasons for it is that the life of Armenians of
Constantinople has a form of communal organization. Classical Armenian
communities center on churches and schools. Such a community could not
be existing in Tbilisi as such a life was deemed to be anti-Soviet
in the USSR. I believe preservation and modernization of community
institutions is one of the issues we should discuss and resolve
through our joint efforts.
I remember it quite well when my children were learning “Little Lake”
poem by Petros Duryan written in beautiful Western Armenian. Today
it’s not comprehensible for children. If we are sure that this poem
and literary compositions written in Western Armenian are really
important for our education and the national character of our culture
we should teach our children Western Armenian for them to understand
what they are learning and not just simply learn by heart without
fully comprehending the idea. We should realize what is more important
for us.
– Every year we expect the U.S President to utter the word “genocide”.
Do you think it holds us back from other useful initiatives, such as
hiring best solicitors who would analyze the addresses of U.S.
Presidents delivered over the past 10-15 years and who would then
state that the message they contain is precisely what is defined in
the UN Convention?
– I think we shouldn’t have got disappointed with Obama the first time
he used the term “Medz Yeghern” and claim that he lied to everyone
not uttering the word “genocide.” On the contrary, we should have said
“look, Obama took a step forward and recognized the Armenian Genocide
de facto, at that, he did it in Armenian.” But we let this opportunity
slip through our fingers.
We should understand the difference between the political and legal
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. When rejoicing at learning that
one more country has recognized the Armenian Genocide we tend not to
see that it is often done as a weapon to influence Turkey. We have
handed that “weapon” to them. It’s a political weapon, while there are
legal, moral and historic weapons that we should twist in our favor.
I would also like to recall that Hrant Dink used to say that it
does not matter for him whether that word will be uttered or not,
what matters is that Turkey acknowledges those victims and admits
its guilt to those people.
Ara Tadevosyan talked to Mark Grigoryan