Tweet
I'm only posting this on here because I couldn't find it on the poorly-designed and unnavigable Gomidas website, and Groong only keeps these for a week or so...
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND TURKEY
INTERVIEW WITH ARA SARAFIAN IN NOUVELLES D'ARMENIE
(The French translation of original interview below appeared in Sept. 2008
edition of Nouvelles d'Armenie)
Q: On April 24th 2008 you went to Istanbul to participate in a
conference on the genocide of Armenians. Was this the first time you
participated in this kind of meeting in Turkey with Turkish
historians?
A: The April 24th meeting was a commemorative event organized by the
Istanbul branch of the Turkish Human Rights' association. This was not
the first time I have worked with the Turkish Human Rights
Association.
Q: The Turkish speakers who participated in this meeting organized by
the Human Rights Association in Turkey were, it seem, honest
researchers. But that still was not the case. What is the utility of
participating in meetings alongside notorious deniers such as Justin
McCarthy.
A: There were no deniers on the panel. All were outspoken proponents
for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, the democratization of
Turkey, and upholding the human rights of all social groups in
Turkey. None of the speakers shirked from talking about the Armenian
Genocide in explicit terms. The speakers included Eren Keskin and
Ragip Zarakoglu, who have over a dozen court cases against them
because of their opinions.
Q: Do you believe that it is worth speaking with deniers?
A: As a historian I have to look at what deniers say and sometimes I
have to address what they say as part of my work. Denialist
historiography has currency in Turkey and it has some impact in the
English speaking world. So I do not ignore it as a matter of
course. For example, I worked on Ottoman archives regarding the
Armenian issue in the 1990s. I found that these archives did not
support the Turkish thesis on the Genocide, but supported the
consensus that the events of 1915 constituted genocide.
I published my findings in Armenian Forum, and my findings have been
used by others. Now Taner Akçam has even produced a book on the same
materials. Last year I challenged Turkish historians (deniers) to
undertake a case study on the Harput plain, where they would produce
details of deportations from the Harput plain and state where the
deportees were resettled according to the Ottoman deportation decrees
and regulations (cited by Turkish historians at face value). Yusuf
Halacoglu, having accepted to undertake the case study, stated that
the records in question did not exist. Dr. Halacoglu never explained
why the records did not exist, though people can draw their own
conclusions: his disclosure had an immediate impact in Turkey as
people asked why such Ottoman records did not exist (or remain
inaccessible) if the deportations were supposed to be an orderly
event.
Similarly, when Turkish historians and parliamentarians denied the
integrity of the 1916 British parliamentary blue book, I decided to
respond to their position with a critical edition of the blue book,
where the denial of the Armenian Genocide was the main focus. I
decided to engage them on this occasion because of the prominence of
the deniers (practically the whole Turkish political establishment)
and because all of the relevant materials on the blue book were in
western archives and could not be manipulated.
So, the answer to your question is that I do engage deniers of the
Armenian Genocide as part of my work.
Q: What about Turkish research on the issue of the genocide? Is there
any evolution about it, a change on the approach and the conclusions?
What are today the various kinds of Turkish historians?
A: Turkey today is a more open society and there is a lot more
critical interest in the events if 1915. Some historians there are
also doing worthwhile, even groundbreaking, work related to the
Genocide. At the same time, there is more pressure on professional
deniers to make a better case for the Turkish nationalist
position. While the starting point of professional deniers is the
same, some argue the same nationalist themes in a more slick manner,
while others try to make the Turkish position stronger by making some
concessions (eg. `During the deportations of 1915 there were some
massacres but it was not genocide.') Such concessions are forced, but
they are significant.
Q: What about the Armenian position on the Genocide?
A: I personally think that there is a need to always appraise and
reappraise the so-called `Armenian position.' The current Armenian
position is somewhat reactionary and shaped by the denial issue, with
a fixation to "prove" the genocide over and over again. Lobbyists have
made the situation much more rigid. However, as historians and
intellectuals we have to maintain a critical perspective and keep
asking the hard questions, many of which have been elided. Our
conviction as academics has to be based on research and open debate
and not the manipulation or restriction of research agendas. For
example, we have to explain why over 100,000 Armenians were sent to
western Syria and not massacred; why there were no more major
massacres in Der Zor after 1916; why were some people not killed in
exile, such as Aram Andonian or Yervant Odian? Is it possible that the
CUP was not as powerful and omnipresent as sometimes thought? Is it
possible that there was more opposition to the CUP than previously
thought or admitted? Is it possible that even Jemal Pasha did not
share the anti-Armenian zeal of Talaat Pasha or Behaeddin Shakir?
Q: Do you feel an evolution amongst Turkish people regarding the
Armenian Genocide?
A: Yes, it is possible to talk about the Armenian issue in Turkey
today, and there is a lot more sympathy for Armenians. Even if the
word "genocide" is not used, there is a recognition that Armenians
were cleansed from their ancestral homelands in Turkey today. I would
even say that deniers, that is those people who only castigate
Armenians, are a minority in Turkey. That is why much of the
denialist efforts today are geared towards Turkish audiences, and that
is why Armenians would do well in addressing Turkish audiences in a
more sympathetic manner - unless their only objective is to hurt
Turks, which I find is the case in some quarters.
Q: Are the Turkish archives open to all researchers including
Armenian?
A: Turkish archives are open and present interesting records. However,
they are compromised and need to be evaluated in an appropriate
professional manner. Where there are difficulties, they need to be
addressed, also in an appropriate manner.
I worked in such archives in the 1990s, I had some difficulties in
gaining access to the catalogued materials, then I was banned for
several years, and I was recently told that I was readmitted and
should not have any problems.
Some of the rules to gain access need to be changed, such as
restrictions of the number of documents one can examine. Sometimes
these documents only contain a few lines and should be given out in
batches rather than sheets (eg in the case of telegrams). However,
such problems can be solved over time. Right now the main restrictions
to the use of Ottoman records are appropriate training and
funding. After the early 1990s I was practically bankrupted and could
not continue with my work in Turkey. I hope future historians will not
face the same problems.
Q: Do you feel that these archives were falsified?
A: I have no evidence that the records in these archives were
falsified, and I have not heard anyone else make the same
claim. However, the available records are not complete and we need to
investigate why this is the case. [Perhaps an example would be the
deportation and resettlement records Yusuf Halaçoglu stated did not
exist around Harput and elsewhere].
Q: Are there still any documents in these archives which attest the
existence of the Armenian Genocide?
A: In my opinion, the answer is yes, especially in conjunction with
other records.
The Ottoman records show that the central authorities, and Talaat
Pasha personally, had complete control over the deportation
process. They issued orders and supervised the implementation of these
orders on a daily basis through the telegraph. The state had both
custody and control over the lives of hundreds of thousands of
people. However, the available Ottoman records do not account for what
ultimately happened to these deported people.
That is why the voices of survivors, as well as western archives, are
so important.
Q: Turkish officials, based on these archives, deny the genocide and
defend the thesis of the deportation, without criminal
intention. Erdogan had stated, that the Ottoman officials in 1915 gave
money to the Armenian people during the deportation. What can we think
about it?
A: It is up to us to argue well against deniers. For example, if Prime
Minister Erdogan has mentioned that Armenian deportees were given
pocket money in 1915, we could tell him that such state support was
rarely given to deportees and often Armenian recipients were
subsequently killed. A concrete example to make such a case would be
the fate of the 24 April 1915 deportees from Constantinople. We know
from Armenian sources that they were given a sum by the authorities
and most of these deportees were subsequently killed. So, Erdogan's
statement can be used as an occasion to engage him in a critical
manner, to set the agenda, perhaps by pointing out that Turkish
official historians have never stated what happened to the April 24th
deportees. Why not? If they are not able to account for the fate of
these people, or to substantiate the charges against them, then what
can we say about the Turkish nationalist thesis and its sources? To
stress once again, it is up to us to engage the issues that arise in a
meaningful manner.
Q: Are Armenian archives open to all researchers, including the Turks?
A: I can not answer that question in a definitive manner, though I
know that some "Armenian archives" in the diaspora are not open to
researchers for a variety of reasons. The most important ones are the
Jerusalem Patriarchate archives. I have tried to access them twice and
turned away. The other archives are the Zoryan Institute archives,
composed of the private papers of Armenian survivors, whose families
deposited their records with the Zoryan Institute in the 1980s. A far
as I know, these materials are still not catalogued and accessible to
scholars. I understand that the ARF archives in Boston have been
catalogued up to 1925, while the AGBU Nubarian Library archives in
Paris have been open for at least a decade.
Q: Do we still have anything to prove on the reality of the Armenian
Genocide?
A: The fact of the Armenian Genocide is a given. There are no more
Armenians left to speak of in modern Turkey, where most Armenians
lived before WWI. They were forced out with much bloodletting and
never allowed to return. Their properties were confiscated by the
Ottoman state in 1915, and the record of Armenians in Turkey was
erased over the past 90 years.
However, historically there is still a lot we can learn about the
events of 1915, and there is a lot more that can be said about the
Armenian Genocide conceptually, in terms of the contemporary context
of the diaspora, Armenia, Turkey and even further afield.
Q: What kind of department of research the Armenians should
concentrate their studies to stop denial effectively?
A: As a historian, I would still stress the importance to study the
Armenian Genocide in all of its details and complexities, the way Jews
have studied the Holocaust. It is important that Armenian themselves
are in a position to represent themselves.
However, the denial of the Armenian Genocide is a political exercise,
rooted in an authoritarian Turkish state. The democratization of
Turkey today is thus an essential element in countering the denial of
the Armenian Genocide, by allowing both Turks and Armenians to examine
the past in a critical manner. Most Turks will probably be open to a
critical examination of the past, including the fact and the denial of
the Armenian Genocide over the past decades.
But I should say that there is an ethical dimension to resolving the
issue. My fear is that we might be entering into a new phase of
treating the Genocide as an ideological instrument - whether it is to
render the recognition of the Genocide a meaningless gesture, or to
seek to dispossess Turkish peasants from their lands in eastern
Turkey.
Q: What do you think about the Erdogan proposition to create a mixed
Turkish Armenian historian commission regarding the events of 1915?
And what is your reaction, after Sarkissian's recent answer, which is
strongly different from Kotcharian's position?
A: My understanding is that Kotcharyan's position was that we already
know what happened in 1915, and such issues should be discussed in a
broader manner, with open borders and diplomatic relations between
Turkey and Armenia.
Sarkissyan has said much the same thing, but he seems to have accepted
in principle that a mixed commission from Turkey and Armenia could
look at the events of 1915.
I think both Kotcharyan's and Sarkissyan's answers have merit (and
pitfalls ahead of them). The current Sarkissyan position is a higher
risk strategy that could open new doors and yield dividends. However,
Sarkissyan should have a more explicit offer of what would constitute
a meaningful mixed commission in terms of approach, scope, access,
material resources and work schedule. Perhaps Sarkissyan should ask
for specific materials to be produced, such as Ottoman deportation and
resettlement records, or the indictment records for the 1919
trials. If the offer is a reasonable one, Erdogan may have to accept
it, and let Turkish nationalists fight their own corner.
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND TURKEY
INTERVIEW WITH ARA SARAFIAN IN NOUVELLES D'ARMENIE
(The French translation of original interview below appeared in Sept. 2008
edition of Nouvelles d'Armenie)
Q: On April 24th 2008 you went to Istanbul to participate in a
conference on the genocide of Armenians. Was this the first time you
participated in this kind of meeting in Turkey with Turkish
historians?
A: The April 24th meeting was a commemorative event organized by the
Istanbul branch of the Turkish Human Rights' association. This was not
the first time I have worked with the Turkish Human Rights
Association.
Q: The Turkish speakers who participated in this meeting organized by
the Human Rights Association in Turkey were, it seem, honest
researchers. But that still was not the case. What is the utility of
participating in meetings alongside notorious deniers such as Justin
McCarthy.
A: There were no deniers on the panel. All were outspoken proponents
for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, the democratization of
Turkey, and upholding the human rights of all social groups in
Turkey. None of the speakers shirked from talking about the Armenian
Genocide in explicit terms. The speakers included Eren Keskin and
Ragip Zarakoglu, who have over a dozen court cases against them
because of their opinions.
Q: Do you believe that it is worth speaking with deniers?
A: As a historian I have to look at what deniers say and sometimes I
have to address what they say as part of my work. Denialist
historiography has currency in Turkey and it has some impact in the
English speaking world. So I do not ignore it as a matter of
course. For example, I worked on Ottoman archives regarding the
Armenian issue in the 1990s. I found that these archives did not
support the Turkish thesis on the Genocide, but supported the
consensus that the events of 1915 constituted genocide.
I published my findings in Armenian Forum, and my findings have been
used by others. Now Taner Akçam has even produced a book on the same
materials. Last year I challenged Turkish historians (deniers) to
undertake a case study on the Harput plain, where they would produce
details of deportations from the Harput plain and state where the
deportees were resettled according to the Ottoman deportation decrees
and regulations (cited by Turkish historians at face value). Yusuf
Halacoglu, having accepted to undertake the case study, stated that
the records in question did not exist. Dr. Halacoglu never explained
why the records did not exist, though people can draw their own
conclusions: his disclosure had an immediate impact in Turkey as
people asked why such Ottoman records did not exist (or remain
inaccessible) if the deportations were supposed to be an orderly
event.
Similarly, when Turkish historians and parliamentarians denied the
integrity of the 1916 British parliamentary blue book, I decided to
respond to their position with a critical edition of the blue book,
where the denial of the Armenian Genocide was the main focus. I
decided to engage them on this occasion because of the prominence of
the deniers (practically the whole Turkish political establishment)
and because all of the relevant materials on the blue book were in
western archives and could not be manipulated.
So, the answer to your question is that I do engage deniers of the
Armenian Genocide as part of my work.
Q: What about Turkish research on the issue of the genocide? Is there
any evolution about it, a change on the approach and the conclusions?
What are today the various kinds of Turkish historians?
A: Turkey today is a more open society and there is a lot more
critical interest in the events if 1915. Some historians there are
also doing worthwhile, even groundbreaking, work related to the
Genocide. At the same time, there is more pressure on professional
deniers to make a better case for the Turkish nationalist
position. While the starting point of professional deniers is the
same, some argue the same nationalist themes in a more slick manner,
while others try to make the Turkish position stronger by making some
concessions (eg. `During the deportations of 1915 there were some
massacres but it was not genocide.') Such concessions are forced, but
they are significant.
Q: What about the Armenian position on the Genocide?
A: I personally think that there is a need to always appraise and
reappraise the so-called `Armenian position.' The current Armenian
position is somewhat reactionary and shaped by the denial issue, with
a fixation to "prove" the genocide over and over again. Lobbyists have
made the situation much more rigid. However, as historians and
intellectuals we have to maintain a critical perspective and keep
asking the hard questions, many of which have been elided. Our
conviction as academics has to be based on research and open debate
and not the manipulation or restriction of research agendas. For
example, we have to explain why over 100,000 Armenians were sent to
western Syria and not massacred; why there were no more major
massacres in Der Zor after 1916; why were some people not killed in
exile, such as Aram Andonian or Yervant Odian? Is it possible that the
CUP was not as powerful and omnipresent as sometimes thought? Is it
possible that there was more opposition to the CUP than previously
thought or admitted? Is it possible that even Jemal Pasha did not
share the anti-Armenian zeal of Talaat Pasha or Behaeddin Shakir?
Q: Do you feel an evolution amongst Turkish people regarding the
Armenian Genocide?
A: Yes, it is possible to talk about the Armenian issue in Turkey
today, and there is a lot more sympathy for Armenians. Even if the
word "genocide" is not used, there is a recognition that Armenians
were cleansed from their ancestral homelands in Turkey today. I would
even say that deniers, that is those people who only castigate
Armenians, are a minority in Turkey. That is why much of the
denialist efforts today are geared towards Turkish audiences, and that
is why Armenians would do well in addressing Turkish audiences in a
more sympathetic manner - unless their only objective is to hurt
Turks, which I find is the case in some quarters.
Q: Are the Turkish archives open to all researchers including
Armenian?
A: Turkish archives are open and present interesting records. However,
they are compromised and need to be evaluated in an appropriate
professional manner. Where there are difficulties, they need to be
addressed, also in an appropriate manner.
I worked in such archives in the 1990s, I had some difficulties in
gaining access to the catalogued materials, then I was banned for
several years, and I was recently told that I was readmitted and
should not have any problems.
Some of the rules to gain access need to be changed, such as
restrictions of the number of documents one can examine. Sometimes
these documents only contain a few lines and should be given out in
batches rather than sheets (eg in the case of telegrams). However,
such problems can be solved over time. Right now the main restrictions
to the use of Ottoman records are appropriate training and
funding. After the early 1990s I was practically bankrupted and could
not continue with my work in Turkey. I hope future historians will not
face the same problems.
Q: Do you feel that these archives were falsified?
A: I have no evidence that the records in these archives were
falsified, and I have not heard anyone else make the same
claim. However, the available records are not complete and we need to
investigate why this is the case. [Perhaps an example would be the
deportation and resettlement records Yusuf Halaçoglu stated did not
exist around Harput and elsewhere].
Q: Are there still any documents in these archives which attest the
existence of the Armenian Genocide?
A: In my opinion, the answer is yes, especially in conjunction with
other records.
The Ottoman records show that the central authorities, and Talaat
Pasha personally, had complete control over the deportation
process. They issued orders and supervised the implementation of these
orders on a daily basis through the telegraph. The state had both
custody and control over the lives of hundreds of thousands of
people. However, the available Ottoman records do not account for what
ultimately happened to these deported people.
That is why the voices of survivors, as well as western archives, are
so important.
Q: Turkish officials, based on these archives, deny the genocide and
defend the thesis of the deportation, without criminal
intention. Erdogan had stated, that the Ottoman officials in 1915 gave
money to the Armenian people during the deportation. What can we think
about it?
A: It is up to us to argue well against deniers. For example, if Prime
Minister Erdogan has mentioned that Armenian deportees were given
pocket money in 1915, we could tell him that such state support was
rarely given to deportees and often Armenian recipients were
subsequently killed. A concrete example to make such a case would be
the fate of the 24 April 1915 deportees from Constantinople. We know
from Armenian sources that they were given a sum by the authorities
and most of these deportees were subsequently killed. So, Erdogan's
statement can be used as an occasion to engage him in a critical
manner, to set the agenda, perhaps by pointing out that Turkish
official historians have never stated what happened to the April 24th
deportees. Why not? If they are not able to account for the fate of
these people, or to substantiate the charges against them, then what
can we say about the Turkish nationalist thesis and its sources? To
stress once again, it is up to us to engage the issues that arise in a
meaningful manner.
Q: Are Armenian archives open to all researchers, including the Turks?
A: I can not answer that question in a definitive manner, though I
know that some "Armenian archives" in the diaspora are not open to
researchers for a variety of reasons. The most important ones are the
Jerusalem Patriarchate archives. I have tried to access them twice and
turned away. The other archives are the Zoryan Institute archives,
composed of the private papers of Armenian survivors, whose families
deposited their records with the Zoryan Institute in the 1980s. A far
as I know, these materials are still not catalogued and accessible to
scholars. I understand that the ARF archives in Boston have been
catalogued up to 1925, while the AGBU Nubarian Library archives in
Paris have been open for at least a decade.
Q: Do we still have anything to prove on the reality of the Armenian
Genocide?
A: The fact of the Armenian Genocide is a given. There are no more
Armenians left to speak of in modern Turkey, where most Armenians
lived before WWI. They were forced out with much bloodletting and
never allowed to return. Their properties were confiscated by the
Ottoman state in 1915, and the record of Armenians in Turkey was
erased over the past 90 years.
However, historically there is still a lot we can learn about the
events of 1915, and there is a lot more that can be said about the
Armenian Genocide conceptually, in terms of the contemporary context
of the diaspora, Armenia, Turkey and even further afield.
Q: What kind of department of research the Armenians should
concentrate their studies to stop denial effectively?
A: As a historian, I would still stress the importance to study the
Armenian Genocide in all of its details and complexities, the way Jews
have studied the Holocaust. It is important that Armenian themselves
are in a position to represent themselves.
However, the denial of the Armenian Genocide is a political exercise,
rooted in an authoritarian Turkish state. The democratization of
Turkey today is thus an essential element in countering the denial of
the Armenian Genocide, by allowing both Turks and Armenians to examine
the past in a critical manner. Most Turks will probably be open to a
critical examination of the past, including the fact and the denial of
the Armenian Genocide over the past decades.
But I should say that there is an ethical dimension to resolving the
issue. My fear is that we might be entering into a new phase of
treating the Genocide as an ideological instrument - whether it is to
render the recognition of the Genocide a meaningless gesture, or to
seek to dispossess Turkish peasants from their lands in eastern
Turkey.
Q: What do you think about the Erdogan proposition to create a mixed
Turkish Armenian historian commission regarding the events of 1915?
And what is your reaction, after Sarkissian's recent answer, which is
strongly different from Kotcharian's position?
A: My understanding is that Kotcharyan's position was that we already
know what happened in 1915, and such issues should be discussed in a
broader manner, with open borders and diplomatic relations between
Turkey and Armenia.
Sarkissyan has said much the same thing, but he seems to have accepted
in principle that a mixed commission from Turkey and Armenia could
look at the events of 1915.
I think both Kotcharyan's and Sarkissyan's answers have merit (and
pitfalls ahead of them). The current Sarkissyan position is a higher
risk strategy that could open new doors and yield dividends. However,
Sarkissyan should have a more explicit offer of what would constitute
a meaningful mixed commission in terms of approach, scope, access,
material resources and work schedule. Perhaps Sarkissyan should ask
for specific materials to be produced, such as Ottoman deportation and
resettlement records, or the indictment records for the 1919
trials. If the offer is a reasonable one, Erdogan may have to accept
it, and let Turkish nationalists fight their own corner.
Comment