AN INTERVIEW WITH ARA SARAFIAN
Nouvelles d’Armenie, France
June 5 2006
Turkish review VIRGUL- Issue 95 – May 2006
dimanche 4 juin 2006, Stephane/armenews
OSMAN KOKER : If I remember right your name was first heard in
Turkey in the year 1995 when your research at the Ottoman Archives
was interrupted by the officials there. In the past few years your
name is mentioned in connection with the “Treatment of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916”, known as the “Blue Book”.
At the conference in the Istanbul University on 15-17 March you made
a presentation about the Blue Book. Why did you choose the Blue Book
as your topic ?
ARA SARAFIAN : I chose this subject because it is topical in Turkey,
and because the Blue Book issue reflects the disturbing face of the
official Turkish thesis on the Armenian Genocide. The whole case
against the Blue Book, according to the official Turkish thesis,
relies on deliberate misinformation about the subject. This is why I
call many of my antagonists “denier” of the Armenian Genocide rather
than people I disagree with.
O.K. : How was the Blue Book prepared ?
A.S. : The Blue Book was originally compiled as a report. We do not
know how the decision was taken to request such a report, but certainly
we do know that its compilers, Arnold Toynbee and James Bryce, acted
in good faith when putting it together. We can make this assertions
because we have Toynbee’s working papers from this period (including
his correspondence with Bryce), as well as his later published works
where he talks about the Blue Book and the Armenian Genocide.
O.K. : What are the criteria employed in deciding to include a witness
account in the book ? Do you think these criteria are reliable ?
A.S. : The key criteria for the inclusion of reports in the Blue Book
was that sources had to be authentic primary records (eye-witness
accounts). Most of these reports were from a neutral United States,
which had its consulates in the interior of the Ottoman Empire until
April 1917. These consuls reported what they saw around them, and they
also forwarded other reports written by Americans and non-Americans
in these regions, such as the letters of American, German, or Swiss
missionaries.
Given these source of information, Toynbee and Bryce did not doubt
the originality of these accounts from the Ottoman Empire, and they
judged their value as primary sources on a record by record basis.
I think the criteria used by Toynbee and Bryce to gather and assess
their materials were creditworthy under the circumstances. They
even made provisions for possible errors creeping in by basing their
case on the weight of all the evidence without relying on one or two
documents. They also, for example, made sure that, the core narrative
of events rested on the evidence of Americans, Germans and other
foreigners, in case the “native evidence” (those from Armenian or
Assyrian sources) may have overstated what they saw.
In fact, when they did so, they realised that the strongest reports
were provided by non-Armenians, and that the “native evidence” merely
provided additional information.
According to the available evidence, the report that was compiled by
Bryce and Toynbee was accepted as a Parliamentary Blue Book in the
summer of 1916 because of the strong case it represented. Certainly
Toynbee had no idea that the report he compiled would become a
Parliamentary report.
The strength of the Blue Book today lies in the fact that we have
a complete record of how it was put together. We also know where
(most of) the original documentation came from, as well as how these
documents were selected from a wider body of archival records in the
United States. This is why we can still find the original records today
(and can not simply speculate about their real or fictitious origins).
I used these archival and published sources to carefully annotate my
critical edition of the 1916 work.
O.K. : Do you think we can refer to the Blue Book as a propaganda tool
? What were the means/methods used by the British in their propaganda
efforts at that time ?
A.S. : The British used propaganda as part of their war effort. Some
of this was crude, and some of it not so crude. The British government
was careful such propaganda did not backfire. That is why they did not
publish anything on Ottoman Turkey early in the war (for example when
they were landing at Gallipoli), because they did not have reliable
information. They were concerned that, if they made a poor case
against the Ottoman Empire, it would offend the Muslim population
of the British Empire. The first pamphlet they printed, not under an
official title, was after October 1915-when they first began receiving
reliable information about the destruction of Armenians. In fact,
the basis of that booklet was a speech Bryce made in Parliament,
based on the new evidence from the USA. Toynbee was asked to create
a publication from Bryce’s speech, which is what he did, and it was
published under his own name.
As more evidence of atrocities against Armenians was revealed, Toynbee
and Bryce continued to collect such records in a more formal way in
February 1916, for a more critical and systematic report. Once the
decision was taken to publish the Blue Book, it was used for effective
propaganda purposes. However, the work itself was not compromised
by crude propaganda considerations, nor fabricated as some deniers
of the Armenian Genocide like to suggest. The Blue Book was compiled
to a high academic standard, and the archival records we have today
support this point out.
O.K. : As you know, Ottoman Empire too published a book, “Ermeni
Komitelerinin Amal ve Harekat-i Ihtilaliyesi”, for propaganda purposes
about the Armenian issue during the WWI. What can you say on this
book ?
A.S. : Regarding Ottoman wartime propaganda against Armenians,
it cannot be compared with the Blue Book. Turkish nationalists have
republished the Ottoman government’s anti-Armenian propaganda without
serious examination where the records came from, who compiled and
edited them, who forwarded them to the compilers, where the original
materials are today, how records were included or excluded from the
Ottoman publication, etc. It would be an interesting exercise for the
TTK (Turkish History Association) to undertake and publish such an
annotated republication, as the Gomidas Institute has done for the
Blue Book.
O.K. : You are the editor of the 2000 “uncensored” edition of the
Blue Book ? What does “uncensored” mean ?
A.S. : I am the editor of the 2000 and the 2005 “uncensored” editions
! The latter one came out last year with minor additions in the
introduction.
I decided to call my annotated republication the “uncensored edition”
because I included information that was left out of the original
publication. In 1916, many of the witnesses whose reports appeared in
the Blue Book, were still in the Ottoman Empire (for example, the US
consuls in Trabzon, Harput, Aleppo, Mersin). The British could not
reveal the identities of these people for obvious reasons. In other
cases, the eyewitness accounts were so specific, that the identities
of the sources inside the Ottoman Empire could be revealed by the
witness statements, so some place names also had to be obscured as
well. When Toynbee censured such information he also placed it into
a confidential key, which was not made generally available-except
to trusted individuals. Toynbee also explained all of this in his
introduction to the main volume.
The confidential key was made public after WWI and has been in print
for the past 50 years. So, when we reproduced the Blue Book at the
Gomidas Institute, we also put all of this information back into
the main work. This is why we called it the “uncensored edition,”
because we put all of the missing information that was taken out in
1916 was put back into the main text.
Deniers of the Blue Book today do not acknowledge these facts and
argue that the Blue Book hid its sources because the report used by
the British were fictitious ! Recently, at the Istanbul University
Symposium, Sukru Elekdag claimed that Justin McCarthy had just
“discovered” a copy of the key in the British National Archives at Kew,
and that the key showed that the reports comprising the Blue Book were
not creditworthy. Of course, Elekdag’s assertions remain absurd : as
mentioned before, the key to the Blue Book has been available for many
decades. Furthermore, if one looked at McCarthy’s work over the last 20
years, one can see in his bibliographies that he has been consulting
archival collections that have included the confidential key (most
notably the Toynbee Papers, Record Group of the State Department). In
fact the same is also true for other deniers, such as Mim Kemal Oke,
Salahi Sonyel, Kamuran Gurun and others. The publication of the
“uncensored edition” of the Blue Book has forced McCarthy to change
his position, but it is not enough to save him. He has acknowledged
the key only to claim (again wrongly) that the content of the Blue
Book is inadequate.
Other than collapsing the confidential key back into the main Blue
Book, I also used the Toynbee Papers in the British National Archives
to trace the original records that were sent to him. Having traced
the bulk of these records to the United States National Archives, I
checked if the reports sent to the British were selective (i.e. were
there any reports which did not support the Armenian Genocide thesis
?), and if the accounts that were sent were changed by communicants
in the USA or by Bryce and Toynbee themselves. I then annotated the
blue book with this additional information, including full citations
where the original records could be found, and I gave my analysis in
a new introduction to the “uncensored” Blue Book.
What were the results ? The Blue Book was exactly what it claimed
it was in its original introduction. It was carefully put together
with the authenticity of each document examined. I can also say that
the U.S. reports appearing in the Blue Book were not selective nor
distorted. In fact, if we added all of the missing records from the
State Department files (i.e.including those which were not sent
to the British in 1916), the Blue Book thesis would actually be
strengthened. Some of the worst accounts about the Armenian Genocide
were not made public by the Americans-but we can certainly read
them today.
I have also published these sources in another book called “United
States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-17” and these
records (and more) will soon appear on the internet on
O.K. : Turkish retired ambassador and member of parliament Sukru
Elekdag said, in the conference at the Istanbul University, that
the Blue Book was the “last fortress of the Armenian genocide
allegations”. Is this true ? Aren’t there any other publications or
archival records on Armenian genocide.
A.S. : Sukru Elekdag is like the captain of a sinking ship who
continues telling his passengers that he knows what he is doing. The
Blue Book issue is a personal debacle for him, as well as others who
have worked for him on this issue. The choice of staking Turkey’s
reputation on the denial of the Blue Book was a political blunder
which will only bring shame to the Turkish republic. I say the Turkish
republic because Elekdag managed to get the whole TGNA behind him
on this issue. I do not feel sorry for Elekdag, but I feel sorry for
those well meaning Turks who trusted his judgement.
Furthermore, at the Istanbul University symposium, Elekdag claimed
that his Blue Book campaign was part of the Turkish government’s peace
initiative last year to resolve the Turkish-Armenian issue and to
hand down a peaceful legacy to future generations of Armenians,Turks
(and presumably Kurds). If his Blue Book campaign is a measure of that
initiative, then we have to questions the actual peaceful intentions
of the Turkish authorities.
Elekdag and his supporters seem to be mocking us when addressing the
Armenian issue. They seem to believe that they are in a position of
power, and that they think they can get away with anything they want.
They are part of the problem in Turkish-Armenian relations today,
not part of the solution.
I suggest Turkish intellectuals consider carefully the case I am
making here. The Blue Book issue is very instructive how Turkey
looks in the outside world-especially as the TGNA has made it into
an international issue.
I believe the most important sources that are available on the
Armenian Genocide are the memoirs of Armenian survivors. Many of
these sources are incredibly detailed and provide the perspective of
victims. Then there are the diplomatic records of the United States,
Germany, Italy and other countries. Of course Ottoman records have
their own significance, though I cannot comment on them. I was only
recently readmitted back into Ottoman archives and I hope to have the
opportunity to return to Turkey and work with such materials as well.
The Gomidas Institute has published the memoirs and diaries
of foreign diplomats and missionaries, such as the diaries of
Ambassador Morgenthau. The latter manuscript was published in
its entirety, because it is a crucial primary source. It also
supports Morgenthau’s stance on the Armenian issue. Most people in
Turkey know about Morgenthau because of Heath Lowry’s booklet which
misrepresents Morgenthau’s reports and diaries and castigating the
American ambassador as some sort of an Armenian puppet. Heath Lowry’s
assessment of Morgenthau is wrong and part of Elekdag’s denialist
campaign from the 1980s. Lowry and Elekdag have worked together
closely to deny the Armenian Genocide. In fact, there was a big scandal
about this very subject not so long ago, following a clerical error
at the Turkish embassy, when Lowry’s correspondence with Elekdag,
where they discussed the denial of the Armenian Genocide, was sent
to an American scholar. That scholar exposed this correspondence and
there is plenty of information about that scandal on the internet.
The Gomidas Institute is currently fund-raising so that it can continue
its research and publishing work, in English, Armenian and hopefully
Turkish. Right now we have a number of key books to publish, including
translations in our new Turkish language series.
However, as an independent academic institution, the Gomidas Institute
has no government or other institutional backing. We are also not
a lobbying organisation. We have to raise funds for each project
we undertake and each book we publish. Sometimes we have to refuse
funding because potential sponsors try to twist our work for partisan
purposes. Like many other institutions, we have to remain vigilant
to maintaining our academic integrity. There is no question where
we stand in such matters. I hope we will continue our work and start
cooperating with similar institutions in Turkey.
O.K. : Have you come across reference to a specific incident mentioned
in the Blue Book in some other records/archival documents or books ?
A.S. : Yes. For example, the events in Harpout, including the mass
murder of Armenian community leaders are corroborated in the diaries
of Maria Jacobsen and Tacy Atkinson, as well as the memoirs of Henry
Riggs. Similarly, the appalling condition of Armenian deportees in
Osmaniye are corroborated by many sources, including the diaries
of an Armenian schoolboy from Corum, Vahram Dadrian. There are many
such examples.
O.K. : What do you think is the significance of the Istanbul University
symposium on the future of Turkish Armenian relations ?
And what are your expectations to follow ?
A.S. : By holding this conference, the participants at the Istanbul
University symposium demonstrated a fundamental point : the treatment
of Armenians in 1915, including the Armenian Genocide thesis,
is a legitimate topic of discussion in Turkey today. This is a
radical departure from the past, when the subject was both a taboo
and proscribed by law. This does not mean that the official Turkish
thesis, which does not recognize the Armenian Genocide, has changed.
But it does mean that the subject is open to scrutiny and discussion.
I expect that there will be many participants in future discussions,
where Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian and other historians will agree
and disagree on concrete historical issues regarding their common
history. I hope it will be a fruitful endeavour.
Even now, many ethnic Turks do not agree with the official Turkish
thesis, just as many Armenian historians do not agree with the
established Armenian one. The important thing is that the Armenian
Genocide (and the genocide of Assyrians) can now be addressed within
the boundaries of sensible academic debates.
O.K. : It was a big surprise for us that Yusuf Halacoglu, head of
the TTK (Turkish History Association), offered you to make researches
together and you accepted it. Doesn’t the Gomidas Institute and the
TTK stand in opposition to each other on the events of 1915 ?
A.S. : Despite all our differences in the past, I accepted Dr.
Halacoglu’s offer in good faith. I will try to work with him and the
TTK as well as I can. The TTK and the Gomidas Institute stands in
opposition to each other on the events of 1915. But I hope we can show
by our example that it is still possible to agree and disagree with
each other in a scholarly manner, in the interest of truth, as well
as peace. Besides, the TTK is not the only body that discusses the
Armenian issue in Turkey. There are many other official and unofficial
organisations, as well as private individuals, who already take part
in such work and discussions. The Gomidas Institute is only one party
in this debate.
O.K. : Don’t you see any pitfalls and difficulties ahead ?
A.S. : Yes, there is always the possibility of failure for all sorts
of reasons. But that is not a reason not to try. Peace is a great
prize we can all share together.
_article=23050