ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
04/13/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://
1) Armenian FM says Genocide recognition is a security issue for Armenia
2) Turkey Proposes Joint Study on ‘Genocide Claims’
3) Turkish President Visits Syria Amid US Unease
4) UCLA Conference on the Eve of 90th Anniversary: ‘The Enduring Legacy of the
Armenian Genocide’
1) Armenian FM says Genocide recognition is a security issue for Armenia
YEREVAN (YERKIR)The recognition of the Armenian genocide is a security issue
for Armenia, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian told a news conference
on Wednesday.
“We have a country as our neighbor that not only denies it had attempted to
destroy a whole nation but also accuses us; we cannot feel completely secure
with such a neighbor,” Oskanian said, adding that Turkey also openly supports
Azerbaijan in the Mountainous Karabagh conflict.
At a time when Turkey is attempting to join the European Uniona body whose
principles are grounded in human rights–Armenia should step up its efforts in
gaining international recognition of the genocide, Oskanian explained.
2) Turkey Proposes Joint Study on ‘Genocide Claims’
ANKARA (AFP)–Turkey has formally proposed to Armenia the creation of a joint
commission to study “allegations of genocide against the Armenians under the
Ottoman Empire,” as a first step towards normalizing relations, Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul said in Ankara on Wednesday.
The proposal was outlined in a recent letter by Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan to Armenian President Robert Kocharian, Gul told parliament
during a special session on a damaging Armenian campaign for the
recognition of
the World War I massacres as genocide.
“We informed them that if our proposal is accepted, we are ready to negotiate
with Armenia on how the commission will be established, how it will work, and
that such an initiative will serve to normalize relations between the two
countries.”
“I repeat this appeal once again… Turkey is ready to face its history,
Turkey has no problem with its history,” Gul said. “There should be an open
discussion on allegations that the Ottoman Empire committed acts of genocide
against its Armenian citizens during World War One.”
Erdogan also warned that there were some for whom detailed evidence would not
change their views.
“Medicine has yet to find a cure for those who do not want to open their eyes
to history,” Erdogan said.
Turkey has refused to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia since the
former Soviet republic gained independence in 1991 because of Armenian efforts
to secure international condemnation of the massacres as genocide.
In 1993, Turkey shut its border with Armenia in a show of solidarity with its
close ally Azerbaijan, which was at war with Armenia over the Mountainous
Karabagh enclave.
Gul urged the international community to press Armenia to accept Turkey’s
proposal for a joint study.
Turning to another issue that has dominated the news in Turkey in the past
week, the Prime Minister criticizes the attempted lynching in Trabzon last
week
of five activists distributing leaflets calling for reforms in Turkey’s
prisons.
People do not have the right to take justice into their own hands, even when
citing love of one’s country as the motive, Erdogan said.
He stressed that creating internal enemies and citing differences within a
nation would damage the notion of nation.
The five people who were attacked in Trabzon and later detained by the police
for distributing the leaflets were released on Wednesday.
3) Turkish President Visits Syria Amid US Unease
DAMASCUS (Reuters)–The leaders of Syria and Turkey tackled Lebanon and
Iraq on
Wednesday, during a state visit by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. The trip has
created unease for Turkey’s top ally, the United States.
Sezer, whose decision to visit Syria also drew criticism from some Turkish
political analysts who argue it sends the wrong signal, said after the talks
that he was happy with Syria’s pledge to pull out its troops from Lebanon.
Turkey, which has seen a big thaw in ties with Syria after years of tension,
stayed relatively quiet as the United States and the European Union piled
pressure on Damascus to withdraw.
“The importance of the continuation of efforts toward preserving Lebanese
stability and national unity has been emphasized,” Sezer said after official
talks with President Bashar al-Assad.
Syria agreed to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon after many
Lebanese blamed it for the February assassination of a Lebanese former prime
minister. Syria denies any role.
The US ambassador in Ankara, Eric Edelman, then publicly urged Turkey to join
the “international consensus” on Syria, in comments interpreted by the Turkish
media as a call to Sezer to cancel or postpone his visit to Damascus.
Sezer has been careful in the run-up to the visit to stress the importance of
Turkey-US ties–already strained by the Iraq war and its aftermath–and
Turkish
media said the president would deliver a strong message to his Syrian hosts.
Assad has publicly hailed Sezer’s decision to go ahead with his trip as
evidence that NATO member Turkey is ready to stand up to the United States on
issues of national interest.
TURKISH SUPPORT
Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari said Sezer’s “insistence on this visit”
embodied Turkish support for “just causes.”
Turkish nationalists insist Turkey must not be seen to bow to US pressure
over
Syria, but some Middle East experts have criticized Sezer’s decision to visit
Damascus.
“[Sezer’s trip] seems nothing but sailing in the open seas without a
compass,”
wrote Cengiz Candar in the conservative daily Dunden Bugune Tercuman, arguing
Turkey lacks a coherent strategy for dealing with the Middle East.
Assad and Sezer said they were in agreement on the preservation of the
territorial and national unity of their mutual neighbor Iraq.
“Views were identical between our two countries on the importance of (Iraq’s)
sovereignty and the preservation of its integrity both in terms of land and
people,” said Assad.
Assad called for the “widest possible participation in the political process
under way [in Iraq] in a manner that guarantees the widest possible
participation.”
Turkey, Syria and Iran share the same concerns about the turmoil in Iraq and
fear it could lead eventually to the creation of a Kurdish state in the north
of the country.
This, they say, would fan separatism among their own Kurdish populations,
leading to regional instability.
Assad said Damascus appreciates Turkey’s “constructive role in seeking to
achieve a just and comprehensive [Arab-Israeli]peace.”
Uniquely in the region, Turkey has strong security ties with Israel, Syria’s
arch-foe, but under the Islamist-rooted government of Prime Minister Tayyip
Erdogan has tried to build better ties with Arab countries and with Iran.
4) UCLA Conference on the Eve of 90th Anniversary: ‘The Enduring Legacy of the
Armenian Genocide’
By Vartan Matiossian
The conference sponsored by the Armenian Educational Foundation Chair in
Modern Armenian History at the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA), on
April 1-3 became an insightful prologue into the commemoration of the 90th
anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
Organized by UCLA AEF Chair in Modern Armenian History Professor Richard
Hovannisian, it served as an interlude to the ongoing series of UCLA
conferences devoted to Historic Armenian Cities and Provinces; fifteen been
held since 1997. This conference was cosponsored by the UCLA Von Grunebaum
Center for Near Eastern Studies, the Center for European and Eurasian Studies,
and the International Institute.
Appropriately titled “After Nine Decades: The Enduring Legacy of the Armenian
Genocide,” this was the fourth conference organized by Professor
Hovannisian on
the Genocide, during his tenure at UCLA.
In his opening remarks, Hovannisian stressed that the focus is “no longer to
describe, rather to understand” what happened nine decades ago. Hovannisian
brought together a broad array of subjects and scholars, with a very important
inclusion of fresh, young names. The popular response, with an average of more
than 300 people during sessions.
Opening Session
Twenty six scholars from Argentina, Armenia, France, Lebanon, Syria, and the
United States partook in the program that began on Friday, April 1 with an
evening session in Armenian held at AGBU Manoogian Center in Pasadena. After
introductory remarks by Dr. Hovannisian and a brief memorial service by
Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian and the Very Reverend Dajad Yardoumian, the
great granddaughters of Ambassador Henry Morgenthau–Pamela Steiner and Lucy
Tuchman Eisenberg were introduced, along with Consul General Gagik
Kirakossian.
Delivered by Nora Arissian (University of Damascus, Syria), the first paper
addressed a little-known subject–the repercussion of the Armenian genocide in
the Syrian press of the time, both inside and outside Syria. Hundred of
articles were written on the massacres, which were first termed “killing of a
nation” in 1916 to warn the Arab public about the danger posed by pan-Turkism.
Marc Nichanian, currently teaching at Wesleyan University in Connecticut,
made
an engaging presentation on “Art and Testimony,” analyzing cases and causes of
failure to turn testimony into art. He insisted on the need to liberate
testimonies from their documentary state, so as not to stifle effectiveness
and
usage.
Raffi K. Hovannisian (Armenian Center for National and International Studies,
Yerevan), made the final presentation of the evening. His speech posed the
immediate and deep question of whether there would there ever be a
post-Genocide era. While providing no definite answer, the speaker considered
an opportunity perhaps linked with the Turkey’s desire to integrate into
Europe, and a more focused Armenian approach to the issue.
Rethinking the Genocide
The Saturday sessions convened on the UCLA campus. In his introductory
remarks
Dr. Hovannisian, underscored the importance of questions such as “Why are we
here after nine decades?”; “how long will we commemorate?”; and “why
commemorate?” as new generations succeed. He emphasized the importance of
integrating the Genocide into the collective human memory, which is the
current
challenge scholars face, as well as political and human rights activists.
The first morning session, “Rethinking Aspects of the Armenian Genocide,” did
justice to its title. Henry Theriault (Worcester State College) pointed out
that Armenian integration into Ottoman society, especially after the 1908
Young
Turk coup d’etat and the restoration of the Constitution, was unacceptable to
Turkish ultra-nationalism, which had already demonstrated during the 1894-1896
massacres how “to put Armenians back into their place.” The levels of violence
and dehumanization in 1915 was a response to the “humanization” that Armenians
had achieved in the past decades. Viewing the Armenians as human, actually
gave
more purpose and pleasure to the killers.
Suzanne Moranian (Armenian International Women’s Association, Boston)
discussed American foreign policy and its reaction to the Armenian genocide.
She persuasively argued that the Genocide became a blueprint for US policy
that
still continues. American self-interest in trying to help Armenians was the
same reason that made America abandon those same Armenians and turn toward
Turkey, especially after the treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
Michael Papazian (Berry College, Georgia) spoke on “Genocide and the
Philosophy of History,” broaching a subject scarcely touched on in the
Armenian
case, but widely examined in Holocaust studies. In a comparative approach, he
used the main points raised in philosophical inquiries about the Holocaust. In
his view, the lack of attempts to make sense of the Genocide is dangerous. The
danger of fixation on the past is especially worth noting, since the
catastrophe of 1915 distorted Armenian identity, replacing the idea of
redemption for one of suffering, a concept that Armenian theologians have yet
to recognize.
The Genocide in Comparative Perspective
The second morning session was devoted to comparative perspectives. Katia
Peltekian (American University of Beirut) presented her findings about the
English-speaking media in different countries, and their coverage of the
Genocide. Ways and modes of coverage varied significantly from England to
Canada and to the United States. She used charts, graphs, and articles to
demonstrate her theses.
Anahit Khosroyeva (Institute of History, Yerevan) spoke in Armenian about the
persecutions of the Assyrians from the latter part of the nineteenth century
until well into the twentieth century. She gave informative insights into this
little-known history, even for Armenians–maintaining that the annihilation of
Assyrians by the Ottoman Turkish government paralleled that of the Armenians,
and left a quarter of a million victims by the end of World War I.
Speros Vryonis, Jr. (UCLA and NYU, Emeritus) told of a lesser-known
episode of
the Greek calamity in Asia Minor after World War I. The defeat of Greece at
the
hands of Kemalist Turkey gave rise to labor camps of Greek military and
civilian prisoners who were kept in inhuman conditions. One of them was the
18-year-old Ilias Benizis, who spent 14 months in 1922-1924 at forced labor
and
later wrote of his harsh experiences in a volume published in 1931.
Tigran Matossian (Museum-Institute of the Armenian Genocide, Yerevan)
compared
the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, revealing the many
similarities–preconditions, perpetrators, and victims–which go far beyond
the
obvious differences.
During lunch hour, architect Sarkis Balmanoukian (Los Angeles) gave an
illustrated talk on the memorial complex at Der-Zor (Deir-ez-Zor, Syria),
which
he designed. He also showed the changes that were made in his original plans
and how the complex looks in its final form.
Education and Art
During the first session on Sunday afternoon, Nicole Vartanian (Fulbright
scholar, Washington, DC) addressed the complex issues stemming from the 2001
“No Child Left Behind Act,” which sanctioned the need for stronger
accountability in educational progress through annual progress reports (tests)
through the end of middle school. Because emphasis on math and reading leaves
less space for other subjects, particularly social studies, attempts to expand
the Act to affect high school, are under way. This makes all the more
important
the need to increase efforts to ensure that the study of genocide, including
the Armenian genocide (mandatory in 6 states), remains in curriculums.
Sara Cohen (Washington, DC) spoke about teaching the Armenian Genocide to a
non-Armenian audience. She stressed the importance of allocating resources for
education, and teacher training, to make the subject a part of a
multidisciplinary approach, not confined to social studies.
Adam Strom (Facing History and Ourselves, Brookline) talked about the
importance of teaching the Armenian genocide as a means to avoid impunity and
to promote responsibility. As a principal author of the Facing History
resource
book on the Armenian genocide, he discussed ways in which the Armenian
experience can be used to teach tolerance and provide lessons relating to
prevention.
Hagop Gulludjian (formerly from Argentina, now teaching in UCLA) in a novel
approach, provided a quantitative and qualitative analysis of resources
available on the internet on the Armenian genocide. His presentation displayed
that the Armenian genocide was a distant second to the Holocaust on the
internet, but clearly ranked ahead of other instances of mass killing in the
twentieth century. A spirited question and answer period followed the session
on education.
Artistic Responses to Genocide
The final Saturday session was devoted to artistic responses individuals have
had to the genocide. Two Ph.D. candidates from UCLA, Jean Murachanian and
Ramela Grigorian Abbamontian, presented a talk about responses through the
visual arts. Murachanian analyzed the work of a French-Armenian painter, Leon
Tutundjian (1905-1977), and the impact of the Catastrophe on his identity as
reflected in hundreds of his paintings from both the abstract and surrealist
periods. Abbamontian, on the other hand, dealt with several contemporary
artists from Los Angeles (Sophie Gasparian, Ara Oshagan, Zareh, Alina
Mnatsakanian, and Levon Parian), showing a wide spectrum of dynamic, sometimes
rather shocking, responses to the past and present.
Hrag Varjabedian, a doctoral candidate from the University of
Madison-Wisconsin, studied the works of two filmmakers, Atom Egoyan and Tina
Bastajian, and two writers, Peter Najarian and Micheline Aharonian-Marcom.
Jack Der Sarkissian (Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles) presented
different aspects of the Armenian response to the genocide through music
produced during the last thirty years. Playing audio excerpts, he began with
Charles Aznavour’s famous “Ils sont tombés” (1975) and continued with Alan
Hovannes’s “Mystery of the Holy Martyrs” symphony, jazz composer Gregg
Bendian’s “After Chomaklou Was a Desert,” concluding with System of a Down’s
“P.L.U.C.K.”
During the evening, the conference participants were the dinner guests of the
Armenian Educational Foundation in Glendale.
History and Memory
The conference continued during the afternoon of Sunday, April 2, with two
sessions. The first, titled “History and Memory,” was opened by Barlow Der
Mugrdechian (California State University, Fresno) with a paper devoted to
three
narrative works by Armenian-American writers: Michael Arlen’s “Passage to
Ararat,” Michael Krekorian’s “Avedis,” and David Kherdian’s “Ask the River.”
Despite their different approaches, all three of the works demonstrate that
the
authors aimed at gaining a better understanding of themselves.
Marc Mamigonian (NAASR, Boston) spoke on the little-known presence of
Armenian
references in James Joyce’s novel, Finnegan’s Wake. Within the book, Joyce
refers to the genocide, and discusses symbols associated with the Armenian
culture.
Rubina Peroomian (UCLA) gave an overview of reactions to the Armenian
genocide
in the literature of Soviet and post-Soviet Armenia. The Stalinist period
impacted the link between history and memory, but a gradual rediscovery took
place in the post-Stalinist period. Attempts at filling the voids in
historical
memory have continued into the period of renewed Armenian independence.
Philippe Videlier (CNRS, Lyons) ended the session with an informative paper
about the response of French society to the Armenian genocide during the last
century. He spoke of post-genocide Armenian immigration to France and the role
of historical memory. He also pointed out that the Genocide was known to a
large majority of the French citizenry. The subject’s obvious resonance with
current affairs, namely France’s recognition of the Genocide and the question
of Turkey candidacy in the European Union, gave way to a lively period of
discussion.
Prospects for Dialogue and Reconciliation
Elazar Barkan (Claremont Graduate University) stressed that the political
shift resulting from the end of the Cold War, and the growing emphasis on
human
rights, currently facilitates the recognition of past events as an important
component of shaping current identity. The presenter spoke of the need to
create a body, similar to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
which will focus on the history of the genocide. Barkan stated that he
believes
the body’s analysis will only affirm the historical validity of the genocide,
but incited some members of the audience by noting that such the judgment
rendered by such a body should not be linked to any preconditions.
Bedross Der Matossian (PhD candidate, Columbia University) presented a
comparative study of Turkish liberal historiographyhistorical assessments
which
challenge the “official,” “state narrative” of the genocide. He discussed the
works of Taner Akcam, Fatma Müge Goçek, Fikret Adanir, Halil Berktay, and
other
Turkish scholars.
Addressing subjects that are at the center of the historical controversy in
Turkey, Fatma Müge Goçek (University of Michigan-Ann Arbor), said, “We have to
educate Turkish society. I certainly do hope that Turks will come to the
recognition of their past. But they have to be educated, to have that
knowledge
be accessible to them. The only thing they have now is state propaganda.”
Simon Payaslian (Clark University), in his talk on Anatomy of Post-Genocide
Reconciliation, criticized various attempts at applying reconciliation models
used in other parts of the world, (e.g. Peru and South Africa) and focused on
the work of the now-defunct Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, which,
Payaslian said, was flawed due to its lack of transparency and legitimacy. Any
future attempts at reconciliation both sides, Payaslian noted, should be based
around international human rights law.
After a lively discussion, Professor Hovannisian summarized the proceedings
and made the closing remarks. The conference was enhanced by an exhibition of
photographs of Armenian genocide memorial monuments worldwide, taken by Hrair
“Hawk” Khatcherian of Quebec and mounted by Richard and Anne Elizabeth
Elbrecht.
All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2005 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.
ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.