Author: Harut Sassounian

On November 3, 2020, the American public, including Armenian-Americans, will vote for the next President of the United States.

As to whom should we elect on Nov. 3 to be President and Vice President is a highly controversial subject. There are strong and passionate feelings for and against Biden or Trump, often expressed in rude and offensive terms. 

Given Pres. Trump’s pro-Turkishness, non-existent position on Armenian issues, and his erratic behavior, I decided to vote for the Biden/Harris ticket. In doing so, I am motivated not just by the merits of their candidacies, but even more so by the failings of the Trump/Pence duo. Therefore a vote for Biden/Harris is necessarily a vote against Trump/Pence. Four years ago, I did not vote for either Trump or Hillary Clinton, given my total disappointment with both candidates. However, I cannot remain neutral this time around because four more years of Trump would be the death knoll of democracy in the United States and American relations with the world. The United States cannot continue to be held hostage by the minority of radical right-wing U.S. citizens who form Trump’s base. Trump was saved in 2016 by the Electoral College, despite getting three million less votes than Hillary Clinton.

As far as Armenian issues are concerned, given the Armenian community’s disappointment with previous U.S. Presidents’ lavish pre-election promises which they ignored afterwards, I am not optimistic that what Biden/Harris are promising now will be fulfilled, should they be elected. Nevertheless, we have repeatedly witnessed Trump’s love affair with Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan which is not about to end any time soon.

However, Turkish leaders are clever enough to woo Biden/Harris to their side after the election as they have done to Trump and many other previous presidents. This will be a critical battle between Turkish and Armenian lobbyists which regrettably has been won repeatedly by Turkey.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden and Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris have clearly expressed their strong support for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

In a letter to the Armenian National Committee of America on Sept. 16, 2019, Presidential candidate Biden stated: “The United States must reaffirm, once and for all, our record on the Armenian Genocide. We must never forget or remain silent about this horrific and systematic campaign of extermination that resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children and the mass deportation of 2 million Armenians from their homes. If we do not fully acknowledge, commemorate, and teach our children about genocide, the words ‘never again’ lose their meaning. The facts must be as clear and as powerful for future generations as for those whose memories are seared by tragedy. Failing to remember or acknowledge the fact of a genocide only paves the way for future mass atrocities.”

While this is a very supportive statement, Biden has left out from his text the name of the perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide: Ottoman Empire or Turkey.

Biden has a long record of supporting various Armenian genocide resolutions as a U.S. Senator, but when he was Vice President, President Barack Obama thwarted all efforts in Congress to recognize the Armenian Genocide, breaking his multiple campaign promises. Instead, Pres. Obama repeatedly used the term “Meds Yeghern” (Great Crime) to describe the Armenian Genocide, which was copied by Pres. Trump in the past four years. It is ironic that the two Presidents disagree on almost everything, except for their agreement to avoid the term Armenian Genocide.

Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, as a U.S. Senator, sent a letter to the Armenian Assembly on Sept. 16, 2019, expressing her support for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Harris wrote: “I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senate Resolution 150, which ensures that American foreign policy appropriately reflects and acknowledges the horrors of the Armenian genocide. When it comes to crimes against humanity, we can never be silent — we must always speak uncomfortable truths about the past, lest we repeat it.”

Given the adoption of Armenian Genocide resolutions by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate last year, Armenian issues are no longer limited to the reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide. There are several other important issues such as providing a larger amount of foreign aid to Armenia and Artsakh, improving U.S.-Armenia relations, supporting the independence of the Republic of Artsakh, and pressuring Turkey to remove the blockade of Armenia. These are some of the key issues that Armenian-Americans should demand that Biden/Harris take a strong position on before they are endorsed for President/Vice President.

Ali Chinar, President of Turkish Heritage Organization, wrote in the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah on August 12, 2020, describing Biden’s negative views about Turkey: “– He is against storing nuclear weapons at the Incirlik Air Base [in Turkey].– He is against Turkey’s military operations in Syria and stated that YPG/PKK was betrayed by the U.S.– He made statements relating to concerns about freedom of the press and human rights in Turkey.– He emphasizes that, in collaboration with its allies in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey must be isolated.– He sides with Turkey’s withdrawal of Russian S-400 missiles; otherwise, he demands sanctions.– He has not made any statements about the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ) or the extradition of its members to Turkey, and nothing was done on the issue during his vice presidency.– He criticized the decision to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque.– He said that he would recognize the so-called Armenian genocide.”

Between now and the Nov. 3, 2020 Presidential election, there is much more to be said in future articles about Biden and Trump and their positions on Armenian and Turkish issues.

On the top of all the other disputes among Armenians, a new controversy was added last week by Zareh Sinanyan, the Armenian Republic’s High Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs.

A few days before Sinanyan’s visit to Lebanon over the weekend, accompanying a plane-load of humanitarian aid from Armenia, he spoke on a teleconference with a group of Armenian officials and others and made some unexpected statements. Here are excerpts from Sinanyan’s statement:

“…We should create such a reality in Armenia that not in the distant future we can think about not only the repatriation of Armenians, but also making Armenia the homeland of, how do I say this, for nationalities like us. I am talking about Christian Arabs, Assyrians, those nationalities that do not represent a national security danger to Armenia and can be easily integrated in Armenia. Because in such an intelligent, thoughtful and civilized manner, we can change the demographic situation in Armenia. We should not be embarrassed by that. That is a correct step. That will be a success. Imagine that we can make Armenia a country that is attractive also to non-Armenians….”

Sinanyan’s above statement created a major controversy in Armenian circles worldwide. The vast majority of Armenian comments on Facebook pages were highly critical, turning this issue, like many others, into a partisan political dispute.

I also watched another one of Sinanyan’s interviews with the Civilnet website prior to his visit to Lebanon. In that interview, Sinanyan again spoke about Christian Arabs, Assyrians and other nationalities immigrating to Armenia. However, this time, Sinanyan stated that the idea came from Shahan Kandaharian, the edtor of Aztag newspaper in Lebanon, the official organ of the local Armenian Revolutionary Party (ARF). Sinanyan implied that the ARF supported this idea, repeating twice that Kandaharian is an ARF member. In fact, the ARF leaders have publicly announced that they prefer Lebanese Armenians not abandon the well-established community of that country. Naturally, no one can constrain any Lebanese Armenian from immigrating to Armenia, which is much more preferable than immigrating to other foreign lands. Kandaharian’s words were somewhat misconstrued by Sinanyan. In the video, Kandaharian was speaking about the immigration to Armenia of Lebanese who had Armenian roots, not Christian Arabs nor Assyrians. Sinanyan also alleged that those who criticized him on Facebook are ARF members and an “army of fakes.” While there may be a few fakes, but it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the critics are Armenians who do not wish non-Armenians to immigrate to Armenia.

Nevertheless, there are several important issues that need to be raised:

First of all, the immigration of non-Armenians to Armenia is a very sensitive issue for most Armenians with serious national consequences which go far beyond Sinanyan’s authority and responsibilities. The genocide of 1915 which decimated 1.5 million Armenians makes all Armenians extra protective of the remnants of their people and the diminished homeland.

Furthermore, while Sinanyan is responsible for implementing the Armenian government’s policy of repatriating Diaspora Armenians, the immigration of non-Armenians to Armenia has nothing to do with the office of the High Commissioner of Diaspora Affairs.

The immigration of non-Armenians is a matter of governmental policy. Since independence, there has been a small number of non-Armenians who have settled in Armenia as businessmen or family members of Armenian citizens. There have been also some refugees who have asked for asylum in Armenia. Anyway, it is doubtful that a large number of non-Armenians would be interested in moving permanently to Armenia in the near future.

To be clear, we are not talking about the various minority nationalities that live in Armenia, such as Yezidis, Assyrians, Greeks and Russians. These minorities have been residing in Armenia for centuries. There is no question about their continued residence in Armenia.

In terms of changing the demographics of Armenia and increasing its population, the first thing the Armenian government has to do is to establish policies that would discourage the native population of Armenia from leaving the homeland. This would mean creating jobs and providing housing. After that, the Armenian government should try to attract Diaspora Armenians, particularly those in the near abroad, such as the recent emigrants to Russia, to return to Armenia. To do that, Armenia needs to facilitate their move to Armenia by having a simple procedure for their resettlement, and providing them housing and employment. Otherwise, the Russian Armenians either will not return to Armenia or will turn around and go back after a short stay. This is exactly what happened to Syrian-Armenians who moved to Armenia, fleeing from the civil war in Syria. Many of them left for Western Europe, Canada or the United States due to lack of jobs and housing in Armenia.

The priority right now for Sinanyan’s office is to attract Armenians from the Diaspora to move to Armenia. If by a miracle, a large number of Diaspora Armenians resettle in Armenia, only then the Armenian government can raise the issue of allowing a large number of other nationalities to immigrate to Armenia. There needs to be a major national consensus for allowing a large number of non-Armenians moving to Armenia. This is not a one man’s or one group’s decision.

While Armenians around the world have been justifiably focusing on the successes of the Armenian military over Azerbaijan during the three-day attack last month, the political victory is just as important.

If you win the war, but lose the peace, then you have not accomplished much. The best solution is to win the war and then draw a long-term benefit from that military success.

Fortunately, Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan has provided the best opportunity for Armenians to benefit from the recent skirmish on the border between the two countries.

Aliyev recently fired his long-term Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov for engaging in “meaningless” negotiations with Armenia. This is the best thing that Aliyev could have said from the Armenian point of view. If Aliyev is unhappy with the negotiations, Armenians welcome his statement.

We should remember that the on-going negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, under the guidance of the Minsk Group of mediators, are solely for the benefit of Azerbaijan which expects to extract concessions from Armenia on the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh) conflict. Armenians should not expect to gain anything from these negotiations. They have already accomplished what they want from the conflict with Azerbaijan by successfully liberating the occupied territories of Artsakh. It is unrealistic to expect that Azerbaijan would someday acknowledge that Artsakh is an independent territory or a part of the Republic of Armenia. Therefore, these negotiations are useless for the Armenian side. They are only carried out for the sake of giving the appearance to the international public opinion that Armenians are not opposed to finding a peaceful, negotiated solution to the conflict. These negotiations are carried out more for propaganda purposes than for achieving concrete results.

However, Armenia continues to carry out these negotiations while Azerbaijan persists on using sharpshooters or periodic attacks on Artsakh and Armenia proper to kill and injure Armenian soldiers and civilians or damage Armenian properties.

I have tried to bring this problem to the attention of Armenia’s leaders in the past. I discussed this issue several years ago with Armenia’s Defense Minister, Seyran Ohanyan. I explained to him that Armenia should temporarily suspend the negotiations with Azerbaijan while the Azeri side was shooting on Armenian soldiers. Armenia should announce to the world that it believes in peaceful negotiations, but Azerbaijan continues to fire across the border. One cannot sit at the negotiating table while the other side is shooting at you. You either negotiate or fight. You cannot do both at the same time. The Defense Minister told me that this is a political decision which should be taken up with President Serzh Sargsyan. Ohanyan said that he was only involved in military matters.

I then met with President Sargsyan and gave him the same explanation that I had given to his Defense Minister. I emphasized that I was not calling for the cancellation of the negotiations with Azerbaijan which would have left the wrong impression on the international community. I urged the President to announce that even though Armenia believes in peaceful negotiations, Azerbaijan continues its warmongering actions. The world would understand that negotiations cannot be carried out under such circumstances. One can either negotiate or fight, but not do both. Therefore, the President of Armenia should announce that if Azerbaijan, henceforth, shoots on the Armenian side, Armenia would suspend the negotiations for three months. If the Azeri shootings persist, Armenia would prolong the suspension of negotiations. Without any negotiations taking place, Azerbaijan would be the loser, as negotiations are Azerbaijan’s only chance of getting some concessions from Armenia. Eventually, as the negotiations become frozen for a lengthy period, the Minsk Group of negotiators would pressure Azerbaijan to agree to observe a total ceasefire if it wanted to continue the negotiations.

Regrettably, I could not convince Pres. Sargsyan to agree to this peaceful approach. As a result the Azeri shootings continued during the negotiations while dozens of young Armenian and Azeri soldiers were killed.

Nevertheless, I was happy to read sometime after my meeting with Pres. Sargsyan that he had announced on Oct. 24, 2017, during his lecture at the Armenian National Defense Research University, according to Mediamax Armenian news agency, that “You either negotiate or shoot, and we are ready for both cases.” He was also quoted as saying that the negotiations should be held only in case of mutual trust, built by adhering to ceasefire regime, while any provocations may block the process.

Unfortunately, Pres. Sargsyan had announced only partially what I had suggested. He had left out the warning to Azerbaijan that negotiations would be suspended the next time they shoot across the border.

Nevertheless, I believe that this is the right time for Armenia’s new leaders to consider my suggestion, especially since Pres. Aliyev had stated that he does not believe in “meaningless” negotiations. I was dismayed that Armenia’s Foreign Minister Zohram Mnatsakanyan just announced that Armenia was ready to resume the negotiations with Azerbaijan, as if the attacks in early July had not taken place. The only time Azerbaijan would be deterred from carrying out new attacks on Armenia and Artsakh, if it pays a heavy price both militarily and diplomatically. Just to carry on as usual, ignoring the attacks, would be counterproductive. It would simply encourage Azerbaijan to continue shooting and shelling.

In the meantime, Armenians both in and out of Armenia have to set aside their internal differences and make all efforts to strengthen the Armenian military. This is no time to engage in internal dissensions at a time when our enemies, Azerbaijan and Turkey, are testing our resolve!

(Part III and end)

This is the third and final article on a lengthy video in which two Turkish Intellectuals are advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Republic of Turkey. The discussion took place in 2015 on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The conversation between Erdogan Aydin and Aydin Chubukchu is in Turkish with English subtitles on the video. The name of the one hour and 37 minute-long program is Tower of Babel. The title of the program is “Facing the Genocide.” The Turkish discussion was translated and subtitled in English by Ohannes Kilicdagi, PhD. Here is the final segment of the excerpts from that discussion:

Moderator: “A question from the TV audience: ‘There are those in this country [Turkey] who are more Armenian than Armenians….’”

Aydin Chubukchu: “It is wrong to say that genocide was carried on Turks. It is true that they died massively. They died in the war as soldiers. Turkish people rather died at the front where their state sent them: In Gallipoli, Sarikamish, Yemen…Suez, Galicia….”

Moderator: “We cannot call these [Turkish] deaths genocide.”

Aydin Chubukchu: “Of course, we cannot. They died in the war.”

Erdogan Aydin: “For example, the Jewish genocide took place in Germany. Almost three times more Germans died than Jews. But one cannot evaluate them under the same category and express condolences for both.”

Moderator: “You mentioned the Germans who died in the Second World War.”

Aydin Chubukchu: “The one died in the clash of two armies, the other was civilians massacred by a state. It is not the same thing. Of course, Turks died, millions died. True. But they died in battles. There is no state massacring them in Turkey. As for ‘being more Armenian than Armenians’ — right. If the Armenian people are oppressed and silenced, I will be more Armenian than Armenians and try to be their voice. If somewhere the Turkish people are oppressed and silenced by a state then I will be more Turk than Turks and defend them. I will be more Alevi than the Alevi and defend all who are silenced: Circassian, Kurd, Arab, Assyrian. I will be more Armenian than Armenians, more Assyrian than Assyrians to give them voice. This is not an insult. If that person asking the question is trying to insult me by saying ‘more Armenian than Armenians,’ it is my honor to stand in solidarity with the oppressed people.”

Erdogan Aydin: In answer to a question regarding the role of Germany in the Armenian Genocide: “They [Germans] played an essential role, but we should be careful not to give the impression that the [Armenian] genocide was carried out by the Germans.”

Moderator: “You say this does not acquit our Ottomans.”

Erdogan Aydin: “Exactly, because the annihilation of Armenians was part Islamization and Turkification of this land, beginning before the war. The policy of Islamization and Turkification of this land, meaning the cleansing of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians served the purpose of Germans who then made the Ottoman Empire and Enver Pasha their collaborators, so that they would use a wider area of influence against Russia and also please their collaborators. While pleasing the Turan dream of their allies, Germany would use the whole Ottoman land for its own system of exploitation…. The war was seen as an opportunity for the elimination of distinct domestic groups. The Ottoman sovereigns of the time aimed two main goals when they entered the war. First is the founding of a Turan Empire from the Adriatic to the China Wall leaning on the Germans, through their war mechanism. Secondly, the war provided them an extraordinary free hand, as no one could interfere in their domestic affairs. So, on this rare occasion, they aimed to clean all distinct identities from Anatolia…. This project is also the reason for sending millions of Ottomans, Turks and Muslims in the first place, to their deaths. So the responsibility of the deaths of Turks, in the question you asked, also belongs to those following Turanism as Talat and Enver. The responsibility for the annihilation of the whole Armenian population, kids and youth, also belongs to Talats and Envers…. We should also underline that Armenians had been organized here 3,000 years before Turks came from Central Asia…. It is said that they [Armenians] were sent away from war zones. No! This is an absolute lie. Besides the war zone, they [Armenians] were exiled from places such as Adapazar, Izmit, Bursa, Eskishehir…. An approach that is based on the state but not the people and their rights cannot generate democracy and justice. Similarly, people who do not imagine fatherland with the rights of those living there but as a piece of soil with a sovereign cannot produce real wealth and justice. If we could carry our land into the future with Armenians who had been there before us, we would see how much they, as a people who constructed European-like cities 100-150 years before, would increase our material wealth. If they were still here in Turkey, we would have a higher rank in the unjust global income distribution. If that people were here today, and we could oppose all powerholders, Turk, Armenian, Kurd together, murders in Soma and Torunlar would have not happened. So, facing the Armenian Question calmly means to re-explore patriotism, our history, wealth, democracy, justice and humanity. It seems we should repeat to our friends, authors, professors, academics who try to cover it as ‘deportation’ that those who were deported were ordinary people (pregnant women, children, the elderly), but not armed people. We should repeat that our friends and neighbors were deported, our humanity and conscience with them. Unfortunately, we continuously talk about the state and its right in a country where they do not exist. But the state is a mechanism of sovereignty with no conscience and morality. Humans have conscience, morality, feeling of solidarity, and their struggle for rights. Democracy is a system where the state is the weakest and the human is the strongest…. Some of our friends ask about documents. We should also be freed from document fetishism. The most important document is the absence of a whole people which once was one of the essential elements of this land. There cannot be any document bigger than this. Moreover, a power which was cold-blooded enough to do such inhuman things, deported, eradicated, exiled a people, would not leave a document saying ‘I deported and annihilated you.’ But we can already infer many conclusions from existing documents….”

Correction: In the previous two articles, I had mistakenly transposed the names of the speakers Erdogan Aydin and Aydin Chubukchu.

(Part II)

Last week, I transcribed the first portion of a lengthy video in which two Turkish Intellectuals are advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Republic of Turkey. The discussion took place in 2015 on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The conversation between Erdogan Aydin and Aydin Chubukchu is in Turkish with English subtitles on the video. The name of the one hour and 37 minute-long program is Tower of Babel. The title of the program is “Facing the Genocide.” The Turkish discussion was translated and subtitled in English by Ohannes Kilicdagi, PhD.

Aydin Chubukchu: “Of course it [the Genocide] did not start in 1915. First of all, the Ottomans had an unjust order on the basis of nations and faiths. There was a dominating nation and several others that were dominated. The dominating nation [millet], which denoted religious groups at older times rather than ethnicities, was the Muslims. So, the dominating nation was Sunni Muslims. All the rest, Armenian and Greek, in the first place, were the dominated nations. This is the language of the state. It is not something that we make up today to defame the Ottomans. This is the description used by the official literature of the time. Moreover, there was a distinct term used only for Armenians, loyal nation (milleti sadika). So, Armenians, who had a privilege among other dominated nations, stood very loyal to the sovereign system. They were unarmed, providing all services for the state, etc. They had such fame. In fact, this is an unpleasant situation for a nation. No nation should be loyal; subservient to or dominant over another one. For us justice should be founded on equality be it yesterday or today. Equal citizenship, equal nations, fraternity of people…. There was a different standard; Ottoman standard. States like the Ottomans have such characteristics. They invade the land of others when they are strong. When invaded people awakened and the Ottoman state got weaker, they started to demand independence. Indeed, every Turk in Turkey should appreciate this. Turkey was founded by a struggle for independence. So demanding independence is a legitimate right for every nation: Greek, Bulgarian, Arab and Armenian…. These were wars of independence for sovereignty….”

Moderator: “Let us follow this line: the 1853-56 Crimean War, the 1839 Tanzimat Edict, the 1856 Reform Edict, the 1876 Constitution — the zenith of reform. Where were the Armenians at those dates?”

Aydin Chubukchu: “Those dates made it impossible for Ottomans to retain the old order based on the dominant-subservient nations. They had to issue Tanzimat and Reform edicts to be able to take credits from abroad. This is the critical point: after these edicts they would not call giavours [infidels] giavour. Giavour and Muslim would be tried in the same court. Sure, giavour is a bad word, we should not use it, but they called them so and this is the language that the ordinary man understands. Properties of those called giavours would not be confiscated. Accordingly, a relaxation came. But, this relaxation, instead of bringing peace to Armenians, unfortunately, exacerbated the tension. Why? Because the local power holders of the old, the dominant nation, started to provoke the Muslim people by saying: ‘what is happening? We are losing the sharia. Will the giavour be equal with us?’ Indeed, the state also connived these provocations. After a while, assaults against Armenians, especially by Kurdish, Islamists, Circassian organizations started. Upon this, Article 61 of the 1878 Berlin Treaty states that Armenians had been attacked and held the Ottoman state responsible for their protection. The Ottomans signed this. Moreover, let’s remember, against nationalist and Islamist prejudices. That the Berlin Treaty was prepared to protect the Ottomans. Otherwise, the Russians, who came until Yeshilkoy [Aya Stefanos], 20 kilometers near the center of Istanbul, would invade it. The Ottomans signed this, but, leaving aside informing [the Great Powers], they continued to let the attacks by mentioned groups. They did not implement the reforms either. Let us imagine ourselves for a minute as Turks in Bulgaria, Uyghurs or Muslims in Bosnia. What would we want, if we were there? Security of life and property. Nobody should attack or harass us. So, the state assured the Armenians of the time the same thing that we would want in Bosnia, but did not keep its promise. The Ottoman rulers, Abdulhamid being in the first place, did not want to acknowledge the rights of citizens as such. Moreover, they did not want to give anything to non-Muslims. This is the essence of the problem. …In fact, a just mind should defend the resistance of a people when their rights are attacked. Since we are captured by the mentality of slavery and an ideology that continuously exalts the state, we expect people to say nothing when the state does whatever it wants. But we do not follow the same logic for Bulgaria. If the victims are Turks and the oppressors are Bulgarians or Greeks then we do not accept it and defend resistance. We defend Bosnians against Serbs, rightfully, of course. But, likewise, when Armenians and Greeks demand their rights from the state, we say, ‘you rebels! You rebel against the state!’ Although this is a medical term and maybe should not be used in politics, but, it shows a schizophrenic, double personality. Justice necessitates that we should give people from different faiths and mother tongues what we want for those whom we associate with ourselves, in Bulgaria, Bosnia, Uyghur, Cyprus. Justice requires this. Kurds were used. But let us divide Kurds into two. One is the ordinary Kurds. The other is the lords, Kurdish powerholders, who aimed to get rich by extorting Armenian properties. Circassians were also used. They were driven from Russia by genocide. They lived through a heavy victimhood. The Ottoman state provoked Circassians against the Armenians in Turkey. It led them to take their revenge from the Armenians. In fact, we have numerous documents showing that some Circassians were used in this way. We should not praise or curse a people as a whole. This is what is called essentialism. All people have their good and evil, victims and oppressors. Collaborationists, disgraceful ones, exist in every people. We have to be sensitive to differentiate those among Kurds, Armenians Circassians and Kurds. Especially, we, who have a leftist worldview, should make this distinction more carefully.”

(Part III to be continued next week)

I just found a video in which two Turkish scholars are advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Republic of Turkey. The discussion took place in 2015 on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The conversation between Erdogan Aydin and Aydin Chubukchu is in Turkish with English subtitles on the video. The name of the one hour and 37 minute-long program is Tower of Babel. The title of the program is “Facing the Genocide.”

The unnamed Turkish moderator started the program with the following questions: “What really happened in 1915; what people lived through? was it a genocide? was it a deportation?”

Here are excerpts from that discussion:

Erdogan Aydin: “Let’s remember that the deportation in 1915, when one focuses on the details, means the same thing as the genocide of 1948…. If the deportation is not carried out by the consent of the people who are exiled for their own security — by the way, deportations are not carried out for this [reason]. It is done to enlarge sovereignty of states, punish society, settle others if the land is productive. So, if it is done against the will of the people, if all of them, including women, children, and the elderly are sent away, then this is a Crime Against Humanity.”

Moderator: “Davutoglu (former Prime Minister of Turkey) says so. He says, he repeats everywhere that deportation is a Crime Against Humanity. He accepts it as such.”

Aydin Chubukchu: “…But when we examine the articles of the 1948 Genocide Convention, we see that they in fact define this practice….”

Erdogan Aydin: “The documents that historians examine are not so important. What is important is the way of interpretation of those documents and how a final report would be penned and to serve which policy. The historian is not someone like a physician in a laboratory. History is not definite or closed to interpretation. It cannot be explained by strict cause and effect relations. All those who have studied the documents and made claims until today are already historians. Ultimately, those who will settle the question under the light of facts that historians present are the politicians. Of course, it is political. When it comes to politics, what historians say is not so important. Documents, statistics, laws showing the state practice on the abandoned properties have already showed that the Armenian people have reached the zero point as they had consisted of a large population in this country. Where did this people go? Where did this pedigree go to? The question is so simple. If they were not massacred then what happened to them? They did not vaporize, did they? As very well-known facts show, war and the Russian invasion in the region of Van, Bitlis, etc., until Erzincan were a pretext to exile Armenians from those lands. How? By being deported. Yes, villages were emptied. People, including children on foot, bare and hungry, were forced to walk to Syria. They were deported from Erzurum, Kars, Erzincan and Van to Syria under the transportation conditions of the time. They could not reach [Syria] because, according to the plan, unarmed miserable, naked, hungry civilians, women with their babies, as we see in the photos behind us, were also attacked by gangs along the way. They were robbed on the way, held as captives, massacred. Eventually, only one fourth of the Armenians who were deported from Turkey reached Syria. Three fourths died on the way. Ottoman documents also accept these deaths due to epidemics or assaults, [but] they say they had nothing to do with it. Historical documents are clear. The critical point is how the state politically will handle and what it will infer from them. Historians have already done what they should do. Telegram sent from someone to someone – thousands of documents like this. Thousands of documents are exposed. No secret document remains. If there is any secret document, it is a part of the documents transferred from the Ottoman Empire to Turkey. The documents that prove the genocide by saying ‘massacre them on the roads while deporting’ are being hidden of course. We can never see them. As [Turkish journalist] Veysi Sansozen said yesterday, we demand the evidence of the murder from the murderer. Does he give? No, he does not. It will never show up. Documents that Armenians have are rather based on testimonies and reports prepared by clergy, foreign diplomats, and journalists. Most of them obviously reflect the entire tragedy. There are photos and films shot at that time despite very limited opportunities. The annihilation of the Armenian people is doubtless. They were annihilated. This is the point.”

Aydin Chubukchu: “Let me add this. This was not done by historians, but by politicians. Cleaning it is also their job. Secondly, as my brother Aydin mentioned, the perpetrators of these kinds of jobs usually delete the documents, use expressions that are not possible to decipher. So, when a felon oppresses, he tries to fabricate a cover for it. In fact, the most important document is the actual and physical eradication of a people from their historical land.” 

Erdogan Aydin: “After 100 years have passed from the event, the 100th anniversary of the genocide should be a turning point. This is how world public opinion looks at it. Why couldn’t this question be solved for 100 years? This is a problem. On the other hand, considering Turkey’s foreign policy and its relations with the West and the US, we can talk about cornering Turkey. Undoubtedly, this issue is now a political card. It also has that aspect. But this does not change the fact that Armenians were annihilated. When one says that the French, Germans, the Pope want this [recognition], our domestic public opinion perceives it as if all Christians of the world, all ‘giavours’ [infidels] have united and attacked us. It is obvious that as long as this crime sticks on them, all Turkish governments and the state will have trouble. That part interests the state, but the same thing is also a shame for us and a shame for the Turkish people. We want to get rid of this. Whoever wants this. But we want it. We are all today guilty and responsible for the ignominious murder against the Armenian people. We should feel this. So we want to get rid of this. Undoubtedly, there is another aspect. Facing the genocide is an important chapter of our struggle for democracy. If we defend the ideals of fraternity of peoples and peaceful cohabitation, we should perform our duties retrospectively too. Additionally, the Armenian Question is a topic that continuously nurtures fascism and bigotry. Animosity against Armenians is an essential part of fascist propaganda. Therefore, in the struggle for democracy, this question should be settled; genocide should be recognized to break and bury the arms of fascism, bigotry and chauvinism.”

(Next week, part II)