Interview With Tarc Chairman

[Siamanto]

David Phillips dicusses his book `Unsilencing The Past' on NJ Armenian

Radio:

 

`TARC broke the ice, it broke a serious taboo in Turkey'

 

On Sunday Feb.20, 2005 Vartan Abdo, director of the Armenian Radio

Hour of New Jersey had a live on-air phone interview with author David

Phillips about his new book `Unsilencing The Past - Track Two

Diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation'.

 

David Phillips is a senior fellow and Deputy Director of the Center

for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. He chaired

the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission - TARC.

 

The following is a transcript of the interview:

 

 

 

 

 

What did you expect to achieve and actually did achieve through TARC?

 

Our goals were always to use the civil society contacts as a way of

building momentum towards opening the border between Turkey and

Armenia. That would be the first step in a process culminating in a

diplomatic relation between the two countries. It was also clear from

discussions that TARC had, as well as my extensive interaction with

Turks and Armenians, if you wanted to have discussions about the

Armenian genocide the only way to do that was to increase the level of

contacts between Turks and Armenians, where there will be more mutual

understanding and ultimately a recognition of historical facts.

 

 

Why were you tough on the Armenian Government in an op-ed that

appeared in the Wall Street Journal?

 

When I was in Yerevan meeting with different political figures as well

as with government officials, the day that I left was the day that the

security forces came and forcibly removed pro-democracy demonstrators

from the public square. That kind of heavy handed tactic in

suppressing dissent isn't what the United States expects from its good

friends and allies around the world, nor is it in the interest of

Armenia. If the country is going to be a strong democracy and

collaborate effectively with its partners and friends aroundthe world

as well as its neighbors, it needs to abide by international

democratic and human rights norms. Clearly the behavior of forcibly

clearing the square, cracking down on dissent was an aberration from

what we expect from Armenia.

 

How could the governments of Turkey and Armenia have helped you in

your work with TARC?

 

If the goal is to open the border, the Turkish government first and

foremost needed to have the maturity and the foresight to recognize

that the economic interest of Turks and North East Anatolia would be

served by opening the border and increasing travel and trade; and its

interest in accelerating EC accession talks will also be well served,

consistent with European Parliament resolutions calling for

normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. If in fact this was the

goal -and my discussions with Armenian officials suggested it was the

intent of all parties to open the border; a clear and an unambiguous

statement from the Armenian Government that they were not seeking

Turkish territory would have created conditions for Ankara to move

forward with opening the border. I know from my own face-to-face

contacts with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, when I pressed him on

opening the border he said that mixed signals coming from Yerevan were

providing justification for not moving ahead. If it is in Armenia's

interest to get that border open, as I think itis abundantly clear it

is, then the government is responsible for sending a clear message. It

failed to do so.

 

 

Georgia has open border with Turkey and Georgia's economy hasn't

benefited from open borders, why will open borders be in Armenia's

interest?

 

We live in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world and the

notion of closed borders is really archaic and the thing of the

past. Right now Armenia suffers a terrible embargo on both its eastern

and western borders and as a result many young Armenian feel that they

do not have the opportunities in the country, and are leaving. That's

not in the interest of a strong and thriving Armenia in the future.

 

 

Can we move forward without addressing the big issue of Genocide?

 

The only way you are going to address it is if you talk to Turks and

you have a chance to share information with them. One of the things

that shocked me in my visits to Turkey was the complete taboo on

Armenian issues and the absolute lack of understanding about events

surrounding the Armenian Genocide, in the early 20th century. Because

TARC announced its work it created a safe space for Turks and

Armenians to get together, it also served as a lightening rod

attracting a lot of criticism, but enabling other civil society

groupsto expand the broad portfolio of dialogue, contact and

cooperation. Those TRACK TWO contacts are going on today.

 

 

How would you expect Armenians to react to a comment made by a Turkish

member of TARC, `..the purpose of TARC is to block the international

recognition of the Armenian Genocide..'?

 

Angrily. And justifiably Armenians did respond angrily. The purpose of

TARC was not to bloc progress of international recognition. The

purpose was to promote mutual understanding through normal travel and

trade and ultimately normalized diplomatic relations. It was clear

that some members of TARC were operating with their own agendas or

instructions from their own government and weren't entirely

constructive. That's the difficulties of this kind of process. You

have a group assembled that represent different constituencies.

What's important for the group is to achieve coherence and to work

constructively together. Have there been more support both from the

Armenian government and some elements of the Armenian community and

from Turkish national elementsand opposition party, I think TARC would

have been able to make more progress than it did. I was also

disappointed repeatedly by the Bush Administration. At critical

moments it failed to stand and support this reconciliation effort. We

always said that TRACK TWO is a substitute for official diplomacy but

clearly the events of September 11 and then the Iraq War affected the

context in which we were working.

 

 

At the time of the Iraq War, Ankara did not allow its bases to be used

by US military. At that same time, in a resolution passed in the US

Congress the Armenian Genocide was mentioned. How fair is it to use

this question of Genocide when it serves the national interests of a

country?

 

 

One thing about TRACK TWO is that it doesn't occur in a vacuum. During

the negotiations leading to the Turkish government's decision of the

transit of the 4th Infantry Division , it was extremely difficult for

US officials to raise Armenian issues in their discussions with their

Turkish counterparts. But then when the Turkish Grand National

Assembly voted against the transit ofthe 4th Infantry Division, US

officials were angered and Armenian issues suddenly resurfaced on the

list of talking points. A few months later when Turkey's participation

in stabilizing Iraq, when the insurgency started to spread, became

more important, once again Armenian issues receded into the

background. That's why it is important for TRACK TWO to maintain a

consistent approach and to fill the gaps when governments are unable

to do so. That was one of the successes of TARC. The milestone that we

thought to accomplish haven't been achieved yet, but I am confident

they will be in the future.

 

 

Are Armenians ignorant of how sensitive Turks are to the Genocide

issue,` .acknowledging the genocide contradicts their

noble-self-image..'?

 

Well, mutual understanding is a two-way street. The Turks bring their

own baggage and their own history to the table and one of the things

we had to deal with TARC was to actually listen to each other and to

respond to each others concerns There was never any negotiation about

whether the Armenian Genocide did or did not occur. What TARC did do

is to listen to all the members. Each of them had their own views

about those events and the historical context in which they occurred

and the effect of those events on the present and the future. It's a

difficult task to get people together and to forge acommon

vision. Because TARC announced its work and felt it is important to be

transparent about its intentions, it allowed itself to be turned into

a little bit of a punching bag. That probably also enabled other

groups to go forward andto be exempt of similar kind of treatment. But

the reality is that TARC broke the ice, it broke a serious taboo in

Turkey. Right now there is an industry of Turkish and Armenian

contacts and cooperation not only among civil society groups but also

at the business level, and all that speaks well of future prospects,

concerning both countries and of course the agenda of Armenianswhich

is to impress upon Turks facts concerning the Armenian Genocide so

that there can be an acknowledgement and move on.

 

 

How realistic is Van Krikorian's position. `.TARC's purpose was not

to explore the truth of the Armenian Genocide. That fact is beyond

question'?

 

 

You will note that the title of TARC doesn't include truth in its

name. In fact when I was first introduced to Mr. Krikorian I

described to him the work that I had done with Greek-Turkish

rapprochement; one of the activities involved the shared history

between Greek and Turkish scholars on the `Fire of Izmir ' or `The

Burning of Smyrna' depending on your perspective. Mr. Krikorian

listened patiently and appreciated the process but he made clear to me

then, and was clear throughout that from the Armenian perspective

there were no two versions of history. There was only one version and

that was the version that affirms veracity of the Armenian

Genocide. The question was how do we address that, how do we focus on

issues in the present tense. How do we build a brighter future for

Armenians in cooperation with Turkey and ultimately with Azerbaijan,

so the whole region can move forward.

 

 

The international Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) has qualified

the events of 1915 as genocide. Why was the wording of TARC to ICTJ so

strict?

 

The initiative to seek international legal advice came from Gunduz

Aktan, on the Turkish side. When he proposed this at one of our TARC

meetings, the term he used was the `applicability' of the Genocide

Convention. The Armenians immediately understood that because he used

the term `applicability' rather than `application', legal analysts

could interpret that language broadly. The finding of ICTJ confirmed

that no treaty had been applied retroactively. Therefore, any effort

by any party to use the Genocide Convention to secure reparations or

territories would be null and void. Full stop! It also found in the

context of the applicability that based on the four criteria defining

genocide that at least some of the Ottoman rulers knew, when they

issued the deportations orders, that it would result in the mass

deaths of Armenians. So the prerequisite genocidal intent' exists and

therefore journalists and historians and scholars would be justified

by using the term `genocide'. The Turks realized they had made a

mistake in the choice of words that were agreed to. The reason why we

surrounded the strategy for distributing the ICTJ findings with

ironclad language was because we didn't want anybody to walk away from

the study once it was completed, or somehow try to disavow themselves

of the responsibility for conducting the study. It took us a

year-and-a-half to agree on the language, to request the study, to

negotiate the terms of reference, to move forward with the execution

of the study and then to release it. I think that the findings of ICTJ

will exist in history as an extremely important document concerning

Turkish Armenian relationship.

 

 

 

There are experts of international law who claim that there is no

statute of limitations on genocide and it could be applied

retroactively?

 

I am not aware of any qualified international legal experts who make

that claim. There has never been a treaty that was applied

retroactively. Any intent to do so in the context of the Genocide

Convention has no basis in International Law. I knew that all along

. The reason why I was pleased with the ICTJ finding is because I felt

it was a win-win outcome. It gave something to both sides and

ultimately rapprochement and reconciliation needs to make allowances

to both sides to move forward from a stalemate and undertake some

progress.

 

 

You mention that Armenians attack TARC in public but support it in

private?

 

One of the things that surprised me after my many trips to Armenia and

discussions with senior government officials and religious figures and

civil society leaders, was their strong support for reconciliation and

their endorsement of TARC's efforts. As soon as the announcement about

TARC was made, Armenian nationalists jumped on it and started making

false accusations about TARC's agenda and intent. Instead of standing

firm behind TARC which was the commitment that had been secured from

these persons all along they got wobbly under the pressure. Had the

government and others stood behind TARC it would have made TARC's work

more successful and certainly much easier, but they withered under the

political pressure from coalition partners, and that was unfortunate.

 

 

What is your comment to your critics who say that TARC is all about

silencing the truth to accommodate the government of Turkey and TARC's

funding and resources were not transparent?

 

Read the book! It describes in full detail the multiple sources of

funding, the extensive consultation, the constructive efforts that

TARC made. We are not holding any punches back here. It is completely

transparent accountingand it's my belief that the Tashnag criticize

the efforts for one reason only - because they were not part of

that. Had they been included, I think they would have blown it up at

the beginning. But their criticism stems solely from the fact that

they had tried to own this issue and as a result there is little

progress made internationally and because of that scant progress work

of groups like TARC become all the more important.?

 

You say you have neglected to develop a strategy to neutralize

hard-line opponents? What strategy could you have applied?

 

Well there are hard-liners -opponents - on both sides and I feel asmy

role as a facilitator I had to work more closely with the communities

and shared more information earlier about TARC's agenda., In

retrospect spending more time in Armenia, spending more time working

with different Armenian groups, so they felt better informed, probably

would have been to everyone's interest. Hindsight is easy. But there

clearly were mistakes made. This was not a perfect endeavor. It fell

short of perfection, but it was still a pretty good try in moving this

agenda forward.

 

 

You say you underestimated the bitterness that exists between Turks

and Armenians. Where do we go from here?

 

 

The only way to decrease that level of bitterness is through contact.

If people have interaction with each other, no matter how bitterly

they may disagree, it will change the dynamics of their interaction in

the future. TARC was the first effort of its kind and I think that the

historical effect of TARC and of the ICTJ findings is yet to be fully

manifested over time - particularly as Turkey moves forward with its

EU talks and recognizes that it needs to make good on its pledge of

Turkey as a gateway to the Caucasus. There is going to be progress on

opening the border, on normalizing travel and trade, on diplomatic

relations. And the more contacts the Turks and Armenians have, the

more there is going to be understanding about the Armenian Genocide

and the tragic events in the beginning of the 20th century.

 

 

You were asked if YOU believe if there was Genocide. What is your

answer?

 

What I do or don't believe is not important. What is important is that

all the participants in TRACK TWO endeavor have confidence in my

capacity, my commitment. My interest in this was inspired by my

affection for Armenians and Turks alike. This was hard work but it was

gratifying work and it was particularly gratifying because of the

honorable way which some of the TARC members conducted their

affairs. I hope the `Unsilencing the Past' provides an important

historical record of their efforts and can be used as a road map for

similar kinds of TRACK TWO activities in the future.

 

 

 

Anything in closing?

 

It was an honor for me to be able to work with Turks and Armenians on

this TRACK TWO endeavor. It was a privilege to make TRACK TWO more

central part of the US government's diplomatic toolbox. It takes time

before you realize tangible benefits, but I am very confident that we

will see in the near future measurable progress and the TARC's efforts

will be seen in a different light, once those milestones are achieved

 

 

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg103564.html