Armenian - Turkish Dialogue

[sen_Vahan]

Indeed I don't speak russian. I suspect it means something like "you would have done the same" or some such. Please elaborate, but I wouldn't put much store in whatever "wisdom" they have to peddle.

No, TB, it means (direct translation, I am sure there's an english analog for that saying) is "No smoke without the fire". I posted it meaning that armenians would not be massacred without any reason. (no justification though, don't get me wrong)

[sen_Vahan]

THOTH,

 

One needs to know the barbaric and savage opressor especially when you leave under its rule. The responsibility that armenian intelligents should care at the time was to be aware of that and not let the nation be massacred instead of giving a support to the raising new young turk government. Didn't they know what can happen to all, where did they forget their diplomacy if they had some? Again, it's too late to blame anybody but it is necessary to understand our fault that led to the genocide and we need to say that directly to modern turks, show them that yes we were wrong doing that but it is not a justification for killings of innocents.

This is where the strength is absolutely important, and I have to agree with MJ that the weakness became the reason for killings and this is why the weakness is immoral.

[Arpa]

Indeed I don't speak russian

No, TB, it means (direct translation, I am sure there's an english analog for that saying) is "No smoke without the fire". I posted it meaning that armenians would not be massacred without any reason. (no justification though, don't get me wrong)

The English is "Where ther's smoke there is fire"

[THOTH]

Sen -

 

There was a great difference between early Young Turk (inclusive/liberal) ideology - and the views and actions of those who seized control of the CUP prior to the war. Thus the promiss of reforms and a better Turkey (for us) that Armenians (justifyably or not) believed in was shattered. And I am not sure that any Armenian leadership (if there was much of any anyway - outside of the Church..) - I don't think that they could have done much anyway. Arms and organization don't just appear overnight (or perhaps ever in certain environments - with minimal outside help...)...and considering numbers and such anyway Armenians never would have had much of a chance - i think regardless - the results would hgave been (essentially) the same...

[sen_Vahan]

Thanks, Arpa!

 

We are getting too far, lets concentrate on the issue that is how do we see this problem solved and what do we really want except the genocide international recognition - so far I saw opinions about Ani, Ararat, which makes me think that we understand that it is not real to demand lands and get them but just some fetishes. Is this what our diasporan political parties want too?

 

Whatever we discuss and conclude is not probably going to change anything but I want to understand the armenians here and to see whether there can be any common points with today's young turkish generation (with some of them I constatnly keep in touch discussing this issue)

 

Do you think that Turkey will do the step to compensate somehow?

How hard may that be for Armenian government to deal with Turkey having the Diaspora behind?

[Sasun]

Sen -

 

There was a great difference between early Young Turk (inclusive/liberal) ideology - and the views and actions of those who seized control of the CUP prior to the war. Thus the promiss of reforms and a better Turkey (for us) that Armenians (justifyably or not) believed in was shattered. And I am not sure that any Armenian leadership (if there was much of any anyway - outside of the Church..) - I don't think that they could have done much anyway. Arms and organization don't just appear overnight (or perhaps ever in certain environments - with minimal outside help...)...and considering numbers and such anyway Armenians never would have had much of a chance - i think regardless - the results would hgave been (essentially) the same...

 

Of course we can always speculate about this question. The Young Turks and Armenian leadership/elite who supported them had a common enemy - the Sultan, and a lot of common ideas and goals. We also learn that there were personal friendships among the (young) Armenians and Young Turks. So it was all normal to expect them to collaborate. But to expect that the Young Turks would eventually resort to a much more devastating and total massacre than Abdulhamid had done, would be very difficult I think.

Imagine that today a new progressive government takes power in Turkey who makes a lot of promises to Armenia, recognizes the genocide, makes friends with Armenia, opens the borders and starts a friendly relationship thus gaining the trust of Armenians. Then, very unexpectedly, this same government makes a sneak attack, occupies all of Armenia and starts a another massacre. Well, this is a very imaginary scenario, and probably very unlikely to happen. I think it would take the same degree of imagination back in 1914 for the Armenian leadership to expect a genocide to happen in the hands of Young Turks.

 

I am inclined to think that, for whatever reason, had the Armenians refused to go to the Ottoman army and resisted the Ottoman government, the genocide would not have happened. Maybe a civil war would happen with great Armenian causualty. Of course, Armenian men were untrained and didn't have nearly as many and as good weapons as the regular army, but they did have something to fight with. (if I am not mistaken, a lot of Armenian recruits went to the army with their own weapons.) Still, perhaps a nationwide resistance would make the CUP plan something else than a genocide and possibly many-many lifes would be spared from pointless and naive death. If only a 10% of nearly 2 million Armenians stood up armed (with anything) that would be a considerable force to do a lot of things. For one thing, to retreat with the civilian population to Eastern Armenia with a more less proper defence. Of course, it is easier to imagine this.

 

Either way, we are back to the present time with present problems...

Edited May 6, 2003 by Sasun

[Sasun]

Sen_Vahan, your question is very important. I think the only reliable and healthy way to maintain Armenianhood abroad is the Armenian State, like it was said above. Anything else would have to do with the question "Why being an Armenian is good?", or "Why should one be Armenian?", in other words a more philosophical question. Why are we Armenian? Because we were born Armenian. There is nothing really special about being Armenian, at least not more special than to be one of many other nationalities.

If we have a prospering, democratic, moral, in other words a very outstanding Armenia, many of forgotten Armenian origin would feel pride, or maybe a sport-like feeling, towards Armenia and of being Armenian. Not to mention that many of us would go back and live there. (Actually, having internationally known Armenian athletes and sports clubs would be a very uncostly way of boosting the image of Armenia. Something to consider.).

I think this is a very wide topic. Maybe we should discuss in another thread.

[Twilight Bark]

Either way, we are back to the present time with present problems...

Exactly. Thoth and you did a good job of fleshing out the situation and the possibilities at the time of genocide. Enough with the whining "Oh why were we so weak?", "Oh, shame on us, shame on us". Enough self-flagellation. Enough demoralization. Enough pointless whining. My feeling is that before we address those grand issues, we have to do the dirty work of getting our house in order in order to be taken seriously. All the usual suspects: Corruption, independent and competent judiciary, press freedom, human rights, major reform in the army's treatment of its soldiers. Not much glory in cleaning up those problems, but they are essential for the internal strength that is necessary for facing "opponents". Obvious, I know, but it's not bad to come down to earth every now and then.

 

Without fixing these problems, we are like an unshaven, smelly bum that wants to crash a party of CEOs and discuss business opportunities.

[Sasun]

Without fixing these problems, we are like an unshaven, smelly bum that wants to crash a party of CEOs and discuss business opportunities.

LOL TB. That is one good comparison :D

[THOTH]

I want to question the idea that if Turkey were to recognize the Genocide that it would be the end of cohesion (or what have you) for Diasporan Armenains. I understand very well how the Genocide issue binds Armenians together in common cause and common experience. And that various activities aimed toward Genocide recognition motivate (and consume) many Armenians. What I question is that if/when Turkey recognizes the Genocide that this common concern/issue just goes away.

 

Germany has certainly recognized the Holocaust - but Jews worldwide are still bound together by this experience and continue to be active in research, commemoration etc and this common experience still binds them together and they still "preach" of their experience to the rest of the world. Why then would this be different for Armenians. Obviously we dedicate much energy (and frustration) toward recognition - but would we not still commemorate this event and would we not still remember the suffering of our families and our common experience? Wouldn't we still be active in researching the issue to more fully understand it - perhaps even more so with "cooperation" from the Turks? So I don't neccisarily see that Genocide recognition by the Turks necissarily ends this common bond among us. In fact I think we may enter into a new and much more productive phase of activities with perhaps a new focus on our cultural and history aprt from just the Genocide with perhaps activities associated with exploring our Anatolian roots and such. Does anyone else see this similarly?

[Guest Fadi]

I want to question the idea that if Turkey were to recognize the Genocide that it would be the end of cohesion (or what have you) for Diasporan Armenains. I understand very well how the Genocide issue binds Armenians together in common cause and common experience. And that various activities aimed toward Genocide recognition motivate (and consume) many Armenians. What I question is that if/when Turkey recognizes the Genocide that this common concern/issue just goes away.

 

Germany has certainly recognized the Holocaust - but Jews worldwide are still bound together by this experience and continue to be active in research, commemoration etc and this common experience still binds them together and they still "preach" of their experience to the rest of the world. Why then would this be different for Armenians. Obviously we dedicate much energy (and frustration) toward recognition - but would we not still commemorate this event and would we not still remember the suffering of our families and our common experience? Wouldn't we still be active in researching the issue to more fully understand it - perhaps even more so with "cooperation" from the Turks? So I don't neccisarily see that Genocide recognition by the Turks necissarily ends this common bond among us. In fact I think we may enter into a new and much more productive phase of activities with perhaps a new focus on our cultural and history aprt from just the Genocide with perhaps activities associated with exploring our Anatolian roots and such. Does anyone else see this similarly?

I think even if Turkey recognise the genocide, this cohesion will exist, because Turkey not only should recognise it, and should as well recognised entirly,... and thats something I think it will never do.

[THOTH]

I think even if Turkey recognise the genocide, this cohesion will exist, because Turkey not only should recognise it, and should as well recognised entirly,... and thats something I think it will never do.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that if the Turks of today were able to blame the CUP etc - blame the Ottomans and consider these crimes of the past - commited by bad folks (during bad times etc) whom/which modern Turks reject - etc - then this might be possible. Obviously this takes some maturity and it would take being willing to dispel certain myths and confron certain realities. Its certainly not possible just yet - but who knows for the future...

Edited May 7, 2003 by THOTH

[Sasun]

I want to question the idea that if Turkey were to recognize the Genocide that it would be the end of cohesion (or what have you) for Diasporan Armenains. I understand very well how the Genocide issue binds Armenians together in common cause and common experience. And that various activities aimed toward Genocide recognition motivate (and consume) many Armenians. What I question is that if/when Turkey recognizes the Genocide that this common concern/issue just goes away.

 

Germany has certainly recognized the Holocaust - but Jews worldwide are still bound together by this experience and continue to be active in research, commemoration etc and this common experience still binds them together and they still "preach" of their experience to the rest of the world. Why then would this be different for Armenians. Obviously we dedicate much energy (and frustration) toward recognition - but would we not still commemorate this event and would we not still remember the suffering of our families and our common experience? Wouldn't we still be active in researching the issue to more fully understand it - perhaps even more so with "cooperation" from the Turks? So I don't neccisarily see that Genocide recognition by the Turks necissarily ends this common bond among us. In fact I think we may enter into a new and much more productive phase of activities with perhaps a new focus on our cultural and history aprt from just the Genocide with perhaps activities associated with exploring our Anatolian roots and such. Does anyone else see this similarly?

THOTH, that is a very good point. I can also see that way. I think it really depends on the person. It is not clear to me to what extent Diasporans give importance to the Genocide as a common/binding factor. If someone speaks Armenian he/she will probably have more reasons to feel affiliated with others who speak or have spoken Armenian. If in someone's identity genocide is the only thing about his Armenianness then it maybe a problem. But your questioning remains valid, probably he will (after recognition) feel that this part of his identity has more meaning, and he will have the same or closer feeling of onenness with other Armenians.

 

The assumption that you are questioning maynot be true at all. How much of affiliation feel the victims of cancer? We could say that this is a common tragedy. Or, lets say, survivors of the same plane crush. Do they really feel affiliated?

 

The more we think it seems like a very serious question that should be professionally studied, probably by psychologists and maybe others. It is possible that subconsciously the survivors of genocide also feel close to each other because of their common ancestry. I mean, let's assume that they don't give a damn about their Armenianness like we fear is the case. But if they give importance to the genocide, they know very well that the reason of genocide was their being Armenian only. So, on some level of consciousness, if they hate the genocide, they must love being Armenian.

I would really like to know a professional opinion if there is such. Maybe we can understand better by dicussing here

 

Domino, what do you mean by recognizing entirely. You either recognize or not. Isn't it so?

[Guest Fadi]

Thoth and Sasun, recognising the genocide is not only saying a genocide did happen.

 

Recognising the genocide is thoses.

 

1- The Victims were innocent, and there was no reason to exterminate them. And the word extermination should be used to discribe the deaths, and not just telling that the Turks did a mistake by sending them in the desert, and supposing that that was the genocide.

 

2- The Republic of Turkey has been made possible and has been build on the extermination of a people(Thats a very important aspect, one of the most important, if that is ignored by the Turks, then it is not a fulled recognised genocide).

 

3- More then a million died. Even if numbers are not important to say if a genocide is a genocide, and it is rather the attempt , but the Armenian genocide made more then a million victims, and the importance of the Armenian losses should be pointed up. Every way to underevaluating the numbers of victims, is not recognising the event that is called genocide. It is not enough to tell, a genocide happened, but to recognise it fully, one should recognise the full consequences of this act.

 

4- Turkey should change the names of every schools, streets, hospitals, Museums, etc... that are named after those responsable of the Armenian genocide. Without that, the genocide is not fully recognised, its like Germany recognising the genocide, and having public institutions named after NAZIs.

 

5- The building of the Turkish republic, the president, the Prime minister etc... should appologise in the name of the Turkish republic for all those years of denials, appologise in the name of the Turkish republic for the fact that the Turkish repubvlic has been build on the extermination of the Armenians, appologise for having turned the victims into agressors, for all those years. Not doing this, is not fully recognising the genocide.

 

6- Making illegal in Turkey, the denial of the Armenian genocide, founding chairs of histories for the study of the genocide, without that, the Genocide is not fully recognised, because recognising it, is recognising its undeniability, recognising it is not believing it, but rather knowing it, recognising the fact, and recognising that denying it, is an immoral and so, should be a crime, and that, like every crimes, should be judged.

 

7- And to finish, the borders with Armenia should be open, and Turkey should recognise Karabagh as a part of Armenia, because it is because of the Kemalists and their plan to destroy Armenia, they comploted with the Bolshevics to brake Armenia into pieces, in order that it never be able to become independent, Karabagh conflict is a direct consequences from the Turks to not only destroy the Armenians, but destroy everything that could identify the Armenians as Armenians.

 

There is other points as well, but those come in mind right now, this is what I mean fully recognising the Genocide, it is not enough to say it was a genocide, but recognising all the repercutions of using such a word. I could summarize that by saying that Turkey not only should say it was a genocide, but rather take the responsability of saying such a word.

Edited May 7, 2003 by Fadi

[THOTH]

Domino - awesome list! Agree 100%...but this step is such a very long way off...

[Guest Fadi]

This is why I say Turkey will never do those, I know we must never say "never" But realisticfally speaking, the Turkish society has not evolved one inch in all the years of its existance, concerning the Armenian "question," it took near 90 years to make them recognise those things, now suppose they recognise one of the ellements in 10 years, lets be optimistic.

 

90 years for 1.

 

630 for 7. Lets suppose that societies evolve expoentialy, and not linairly. Still, it will take more then a 100 years. During that time, we have no idea if those societies will exist as now etc...

 

So, I am sure that Turkey will never recognise the genocide fully, there will be always a place for discussion, relativisation, and denial in many aspects of the said question.

[Sasun]

Yes, Domino, you are rigth. Accepting any of those points would be against the national interests of Turkey because of the history and nature of the Turkish Republic. It will be viewed more so as long as Turkey is contolled by the military. This looks like a 0 sum game despite the fact that we always hope that it could be a win-win game.

[Guest Fadi]

An important correction, for point 1. When I said there was no reason, I wanted to say there was no reason that could justify extermination. Because there are reasons for the genocide, but those reasons can not justify the act of genocide.

[THOTH]

Yes perhaps Domino - but these things don't evolve linearly..and you never know...certainly there is very little reason to hope for much - based on past performance...and i understand that the stakes are high...but once a basic recognition is made i think the floodgates will come open...and if not - just think - for all those in the Genocide recognition "business' there will stil be more work to be done!

[sen_Vahan]

Exactly. Thoth and you did a good job of fleshing out the situation and the possibilities at the time of genocide. Enough with the whining "Oh why were we so weak?", "Oh, shame on us, shame on us". Enough self-flagellation. Enough demoralization. Enough pointless whining. My feeling is that before we address those grand issues, we have to do the dirty work of getting our house in order in order to be taken seriously. All the usual suspects: Corruption, independent and competent judiciary, press freedom, human rights, major reform in the army's treatment of its soldiers. Not much glory in cleaning up those problems, but they are essential for the internal strength that is necessary for facing "opponents". Obvious, I know, but it's not bad to come down to earth every now and then.

 

Without fixing these problems, we are like an unshaven, smelly bum that wants to crash a party of CEOs and discuss business opportunities.

Bravo! I expected somebody to say this. In homeland a dirty house in diaspora a bunch of pussies.

[Twilight Bark]

Exactly. Thoth and you did a good job of fleshing out the situation and the possibilities at the time of genocide. Enough with the whining "Oh why were we so weak?", "Oh, shame on us, shame on us". Enough self-flagellation. Enough demoralization. Enough pointless whining. My feeling is that before we address those grand issues, we have to do the dirty work of getting our house in order in order to be taken seriously. All the usual suspects: Corruption, independent and competent judiciary, press freedom, human rights, major reform in the army's treatment of its soldiers. Not much glory in cleaning up those problems, but they are essential for the internal strength that is necessary for facing "opponents". Obvious, I know, but it's not bad to come down to earth every now and then. 

 

Without fixing these problems, we are like an unshaven, smelly bum that wants to crash a party of CEOs and discuss business opportunities.

Bravo! I expected somebody to say this. In homeland a dirty house in diaspora a bunch of pussies.

Naturally enough, the homeland is the only entity we have that has enough organization and the potential wherewithal to "make things happen". And not unexpectedly, the diaspora is a very heterogeneous and disorganized cloud; it does not have the potential to lead or make things happen by itself. In the absence of inspiring, charismatic leadership from the homeland, the individuals in this cloud are preoccupied with the challenges of daily survival, materially as well as spiritually (and I don't mean religion). Complaining about the diaspora is like complaining about the weather; tha act of complaining will not change it, because there is no mechanism to implement the changes, short of visiting each diasporan house, and lecture them ( ) on a constant basis without getting beaten up .

 

To continue (and conclude) on the orginal topic, in the absence of sufficient information about how good a deal a "raw deal" (to which I am not against offhand) on the recognition issue would be in the long run, I am inclined to urge focusing on fixing our internal problems and our internal strengths. Needless to say, easier said than done in the absence of an intelligent and inspiring leadership with integrity. Currently we are lacking about 2-2.5 of those 3 "I"s.

 

Twilight Bark

[Sasun]

This below info is closely related to our discussion.

 

In the past, 'if one region (of Armenia) was captured the

people could flee to another' to 'regroup and counterattack as soon as

the chance offered itself.' The loss of land resulting from the

Genocide deprives Armenians from having 'several defensive

regions'. Armenia now 'lacks strategic depth' and has no territory 'to

retreat and regroup its forces' in the event of hostile attack.

 

For this reason genocide and its consequences are a very serious political/security issue for present day Armenia.

 

=============================

 

Armen Aivazian speaks in London

 

Armenian News Network / Groong

May 8, 2003

 

LONDON, UK

 

Armen Aivazian in London speaks on the strategic consequences of

Armenian genocide.

 

On Sunday 27 April 2003, the London-based Campaign for Recognition of

Armenian Genocide (CRAG) organised what was an extraordinary

meeting. Perhaps more than a hundred people gathered in a west London

hall to listen to Professor Armen Aivazian from Armenia speak on the

'Strategic Consequences of the Armenian Genocide'.

 

More surprising and pleasant than the significant turnout was a

healthy representation of younger people, not usually in evidence at

Armenian political meetings. But most surprising of all was Armen

Aivazian's refreshing speech that contained not a hint of the now

routine but soulless laments that debase the memory of the Genocide.

The speaker offered instead a dispassionate and novel treatise that

sought to measure the consequences of the Genocide 'in the context of

political and strategic criteria' that could affect the present and

future prospects of the Armenian people.

 

Among the many points (full text on the CRAG Website - www.24april.org/)

about the enduring consequences of the Genocide was one that concerns

Armenian strategic security deserves underlining and further

discussion. In the past, 'if one region (of Armenia) was captured the

people could flee to another' to 'regroup and counterattack as soon as

the chance offered itself.' The loss of land resulting from the

Genocide deprives Armenians from having 'several defensive

regions'. Armenia now 'lacks strategic depth' and has no territory 'to

retreat and regroup its forces' in the event of hostile attack.

 

Such concerns are not products of fevered and demented nationalist

imagination. Dr. Aivazian noted that since Armenian independence the

Turkish state has refused to recognise the Armenian Republic. The

pretexts have changed in time behind them is an unyielding opposition

to the very existence of an Armenian state. Quoting a former Greek

ambassador as well as senior Turkish and Azeri politicians the speaker

showed that Turkish state threats against a struggling Armenia are

very real.

 

This was the context in which Dr. Aivazian argued that 'the

recognition of genocide by the international community would reduce

the possibility of any direct Turkish aggression against the Republic

of Armenia' and recognition by Turkey 'could serve as a rudimentary

confidence-building measure in Armenian-Turkish relations.' There is

of course a measure of truth in such a claim. But it is a very small

measure. No powerful and determined state has ever been held up in

its predatory ambitions by paper declarations. The international

community, dominated by major world powers, has furthermore proved

itself a pathetic guarantor of small nations.

 

Besides genocide recognition there are other political and diplomatic

measures that could serve, however minimally to safeguard Armenian

security. But none could have any weight without a stable and strong

Armenian state enjoying the support of its people as well as an

energetic government acting on behalf of the people. Both are absent

factors in Armenia.

 

It needs to be stressed that Armen Aivazian did not propose genocide

recognition as the main axis of Armenian defence. Rather he argued for

a social, intellectual, cultural and economic revival as the

foundation of a strong Armenia. Here he suggested a massive

immigration that could bring 'a completely new and vigorous impetus to

the on-going struggle for social justice and equal rights', a struggle

that certainly could contribute to the development of a firm Armenian

state.

 

The healthy discussion highlighted the central weakness in the current

Armenian journey towards a strong independent state. The Armenian

government and elite and many of its major institutions remain

indifferent to the urgent issues confronting the Armenian people. But

as Armen Aivazian noted in the absence of effective government

leadership the people have to act.

Edited May 9, 2003 by Sasun

[THOTH]

Some interesting/worthwhile points. but we shouldn't forget that Nazi Germany and the USSR were very concerned about buffer zones and such as well. Armenia is, and always will be a small and vulnerable nation.

[Sasun]

I found the actual talk : http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/cragsite/Strategic.htm

 

He is raising some interesting and novel views. As to repatriation at the proposed level, again a question arises: why would Diasporans want to rapatriate? I would understand some Haiastantsis who have more/less memories, relatives, homesickness, etc., but others, including senior people... its a little unrealistic given the current state. A sort of a new ideology would be necessary as a moral drive for 2nd,3rd generation Armenians to go 'back' to present Armenia. It is another thing if Armenia was a more less developed and a rule of law country. Perhaps Armenians from the middle East would have less objections to live in Armenia.

 

 

Some interesting/worthwhile points. but we shouldn't forget that Nazi Germany and the USSR were very concerned about buffer zones and such as well. Armenia is, and always will be a small and vulnerable nation.

 

That is true. Armenia will always be small, but it may reduce the vulnerability with correct foreign policy and alliances. Georgia and Azerbaijan, although bigger than Armenia, have the same geostrategic vulnerability. This could naturally make the 3 countries (in a long term) unite in defence and economic ways in a confederation/federation (let alone a single state, much better but much less realistic). That would be a solid political, economic and military unit to significantly reduce foreign dependence and increase defence capabilities of all 3 countries. The single most important impediment towards any such scenario, however, is the Turkish factor.

Edited May 9, 2003 by Sasun

[THOTH]

LOL - Sasun - i have long promoted this idea of an (eventual) confederation of the Caucuses nations...and been attcked (by nationalistic Armenians) for it! Glad to see that you are thinking along similar lines...