Interview With Jirair Libaridian

[Armen]

"THOUGHTS ON THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY ACTIVITIES"

 

ARAVOT DAILY'S INTERVIEW WITH JIRAIR LIBARIDIAN

 

Aravot Daily (Yerevan)

June 28, 2005

 

QUESTION: The 90th Anniversary of the Genocide was marked by a number of

activities in Armenia and in the Diaspora. You participated or observed

many of them. Do you have any thoughts about these activities?

 

ANSWER: This certainly was a special year. I think we can talk about it

more openly now that the main activities are over.

 

It is heartening of course to see our people and our young generations

continuing to respect the memory of the victims of the Genocide in an

increasingly organized and unified way.

 

I do have questions in my mind, nonetheless, regarding some aspects of

this process.

 

The silent march to Tzitzerkaberd, the main event in my view, has been

one of the most solemn, dignified and moving experiences any person

could live through since the monument was erected in 1967. It is a

collective spiritual experience, a form of communion with the victims.

Some of that solemnity and dignity was lost this year, it seems to me;

with banners and slogans, at times it seemed as if it was a political

demonstration. I think there are more appropriate places for that. The

show of respect for the memory of the victims, which is the purpose of

the march, and the contemplative nature of the monument require a more

serene presence.

 

I am not sure also that billboards marking the anniversary in the main

streets of Yerevan were appropriate. Billboards advertise or sell

things. Do we need to advertise or sell the Genocide?

 

More generally, we have to think of the direction in which we in Armenia

and the Diaspora are going as far as our relations with the

international community are concerned. Is the Genocide our only concern

in our relations with our neighbors, with other countries? If that is

the case, then why not demand that countries like Germany, France, the

United Kingdom, and Russia recognize first their responsibility in

creating the conditions for a genocide before they recognize that of the

Ottoman Empire?

 

Furthermore, is a country "pro-Armenian" if it recognizes the Genocide?

The current atmosphere lends to that view. What if France, for example,

recognized the Genocide but pressured Armenia to make concessions on

Artsax that Armenia cannot make on its own? What will we tell France?

That it is not pro-Armenian? Is it possible that this single issue may

blind us to what else is going with regard to a number of others we have

to settle with the international community.

 

There is also the danger that the Genocide issue may be used by other

powers-just as the "Armenian Question" was historically-to settle their

own accounts with Turkey, accounts that have little to do with the

Genocide, thus reducing the memory of our victims to an element in their

games, an element that would be used and abused, picked up and dropped

at their will, not ours? Doesn't that make us vulnerable to dangerous

manipulations? Doesn't that mean turning over the key to our policy

making -to our sense of success and failure, in fact our agenda-to

others who have no compunction manipulating us?

 

At the end, the question is: Is the "victim" psychology and the

political program that ensues from it the way we as a state and as

Diaspora want to relate to the world? However righteous and even

comfortable that may make us feel, we must at least ask the question.

 

The world may or may not owe us something. But it certainly will not

give us everything we want. Historically, it has given little.

 

QUESTION: Is there an alternative strategy?

 

ANSWER: I think we have come a long way since independence in

Turkish-Armenian relations. Changes in Turkey on the societal level and

even failed attempts at establishing dialog have contributed to an

atmosphere within which increased dialog with Turkish citizens may be

equally, if not more productive. We have to recognize that ultimately it

is the people of Turkey we have to address on this issue. It is their

historians and scientists, their teachers and journalists, and their

young generations who we must help to come to terms with their history.

In the long run, it is the more effective way. It is not the easiest

task. But if we are serious, it is the people of Turkey that must

understand and assess their history. That would be true recognition.

That requires an understanding on our part as to why it is that not only

successive governments of Turkey that have denied the Genocide, but also

Turkish society by and large. That requires recognizing changes in

Turkish society that have been opening opportunities for us in the last

two decades or so. That requires recognition of the value of the

policies of independent Armenia's first administration that did not

define Turkey as an enemy and created an environment for a critical view

of Turkish history and political structures from within. That requires

recognition of the efforts of a number of Armenian scholars who have

been in a dialog with their Turkish scholars for a number of years now.

But I am not sure this is convenient to many on our side. I am certain

that we have much to gain by framing the issue of Genocide recognition

as a problem for Turkish society and democracy and little to gain by

making it a European or Western issue.

 

The most recent events in Turkey testify to the validity of such a

strategy. Over thirty scholars supported by three universities, one of

them a state university, took it upon themselves to organize a

conference on the Armenian Question. Some in the government intervened

and made it difficult for the scholars to meet. Nonetheless, we must

recognize that we have entered a new phase in our relations with Turkey

since independence and that new phase has also coincided with changes in

Turkey. We must adjust our direction.

 

QUESTION: The 90th Anniversary activities included an International

Conference in Yerevan in which you participated. Any comments on the

Conference?

 

ANSWER: Yes, I participated in the deliberations on the second day,

since I had to attend a workshop on Security and Democracy in

Tzaghkadzor the first day, a workshop that had been decided upon before

I received the invitation. I was asked to chair the last session, on the

Turkish-Armenian relations.

 

From what I could observe that day, the conference had a large number

of high quality, international participation with many dignified

presentations, particularly touching upon the international dimensions

and the legal aspects of the question of Genocide. A number of questions

were raised and hopefully will become subject to public debate.

 

The conference did have some problem areas. The participants included

high level international figures with their concerns, as well as

academic, public and political figures with theirs. Combined with a very

large audience, it was impossible to pursue lines of thought and sustain

debate in a manner that satisfied the participants or the audience.

Nonetheless, it was commendable that the issues were framed beyond the

confines of the Armenian case. The participation of international figure

such as former President Lech Walesa of Poland and Juan Mendez, Special

Advisor to the UN Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide, and

of internationally recognized scholars, especially legal experts, gave

much weight to the Conference.

 

QUESTION: There were a number of issues raised during the session you

chaired which were not properly explored. Professor Richard Hovannisian,

for example prefaced his presentation with a statement that recent

events vindicated the position of Armenia's first Foreign Minister-- his

son Raffi Hovannisian--with regard to Turkey. Professor Rouben

Safrastyan argued that the policies of President Ter-Petrossian were

misconceived since Turkey's policy toward Armenia being of a "coercive"

nature. Do you agree?

 

ANSWER: First, I find Professor Hovanisian's personalized comments

inappropriate for an international conference on the Genocide, as I made

clear at the end of the session. Raffi is a person with many qualities,

continues to contribute to Armenia's political life and he will continue

to do so. He is not the issue in question.

 

On a technical level, with regard to Raffi's tenure as Foreign Minister,

it is clear that if a Minister disagrees with a President, who is the

elected official constitutionally responsible for foreign policy and has

the right to define policy, then for a minister to conduct policy

contrary to that defined by the president is unacceptable in any

government. I ascribe that incident to youthful enthusiasm.

 

As for Professor Safrastyan, it is not clear to me when he started

thinking in the direction he stated. Rouben was part of my analysis

group; he was the senior expert on Turkey. He fully participated in the

discussions we had, contributed to policy making and even accompanied me

twice I believe when I went to Ankara for negotiations. I do not

remember him having any reservations or raising any objections regarding

the policy that was decided and conducted. If he had any objections he

could have raised them then and may be we would have benefited from his

expertise. It is possible, of course, to revise one's views; but in that

case it would have been better for him to acknowledge his role in the

policies he is now criticizing. If a person is in a position where he

can make a difference and does not do so, one would have to question his

behavior. I have difficulty evaluating his later criticism and question

his reasons for his earlier silence or his criticism today.

 

More importantly, the assessment of the first administration's policies

toward Turkey-by Professors Hovannisian and Safrastyan or by

others-requires a more serious and responsible analysis than was offered

by any of the participants.

 

Armenia's policy then and in its essentials now is based on the

principle that the ultimate security and prosperity of a country,

especially one with Armenia's characteristics, depends on normal

relations with all of its neighbors. I think that the history of this

republic proves that. Neighbors provide the most likely threats or the

most likely opportunities. The purpose of foreign policy is to minimize

the first and reach out to the second. All else ensues from this

principle, all else is a matter of tactics.

 

Simple principles guiding foreign policy have practical consequences.

One does not only have enemies but also makes them. This implies that we

must take responsibility for our actions and inactions, for our words

and for our silences. For our policies. If our policies don't make a

difference because Turkey will be an enemy eternally or because the only

fact that counts is that its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire,

committed genocide, then we should not think about policy, then freedom

to think and to elect and independence become irrelevant. That is an

escape from responsibility. What would that have meant for an Armenia

whose economy had collapsed with the USSR, an Armenia in an energy

crisis, under a full blockade from Azerbaijan and involved in the

Artsax war?

 

Now let us assume for a moment that we had based our policy on a

completely different principle. Let us assume that we had brought

Genocide recognition to the forefront of our policy and treated Turkey

as the eternal enemy because it had not recognized the Genocide; and

that we poured all our energies into that battle. What would have been

the result?

 

It is true that we were unable to achieve our ultimate goal, relations

were not normalized as a result of our policy. Under the circumstances,

it was not to be easy. Yet, we must also take responsibility for that;

it is not all Turkey's fault. Our occupation of Azerbaijani territory,

especially beginning with Kelbajar was the major factor in that failure.

Whatever our reasons for doing so, the fact remains that we took such

action which was seen as deeply suspicious and reprehensible from

Turkey's point of view. And should our policy be assessed only by the

standard of full success, i.e., the establishment of normal relations?

Isn't it important that under the circumstances Turkey showed much

restraint during the war when its ethnic cousins were losing the war

with dire consequences for hundreds of thousands of their citizens?

 

Perhaps more important is the example of the wheat supply situation in

Armenian in the fall of 1992, when the Abkhaz war interrupted the only

open rail link that brought wheat to Armenia. At that time Armenia

produced only 40% of the wheat it consumed annually; and even that was

endangered because of the economic disruptions. Turkey could have

refused our request to open the Kars-Gyumri rail line to bring in the

100,000 tons of wheat the European Union had pledged to Armenia. Turkey

did not refuse our request and the border was opened for that purpose.

It became possible to pass the horrible 1992-1993 winter without famine

in Armenia. Would that have been possible if our policy had been

different? Is famine what the victims of the Genocide would have wanted

us to condemn our people to with the possible loss of Artsax as a

consequence?

 

The unfortunate fact is that such views are being expressed by

historians who should know the history of the First Republic and who

should be able to situate policies and actions in the context of history

and not in the abstract world of wishful thinking.

 

No, I do not agree with my colleagues. As deeply as the issue of

Genocide recognition touches us all deeply and angers us, the existence

of the state of Armenia and the survival, security and prosperity of the

living-especially those living in that state and Artsax-- remain the

highest value. I don't think the victims of the Genocide would have

wanted it differently. New martyrdom is not the only or even best way to

respect the memory of those who perished.

 

QUESTION: One other issue came up during that last session which you

chaired. The secretary of the HH Dashnaktsutyune, Kiro Manoyan, thought

this conference was an improvement over the one you had organized ten

years ago on the 80th Anniversary, since his party was absent then and

was represented now.

 

ANSWER: That was more amusing than serious, I thought, since his comment

raised more questions than it answered. Ten years ago, when we had

initiated the idea of an international conference on the 80th

Anniversary and organized it, there were no parties represented in the

conference, since we did not see the Genocide as a party issue. On the

other hand, no party other than his was invited to this one. I do not

have an answer to this one.

[Sasun]

Armen jan, welcome back. Good to see you again

[Armen]

Armen jan, welcome back. Good to see you again

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Thanks Sasun jan.