The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the American President, Barack Obama, have both been accused of ‘denialism’ by representatives of the Armenian community in response to their official statements issued to commemorate formally the 99th anniversary of atrocities committed in 1915 against the Armenian minority living in Turkey.
The accusations directed at the two leaders are somewhat different as is the tone and substance of their two statements. Obama is essentially being attacked because the Armenian diaspora community in the United States was led to believe during his presidential campaign of 2008 that he would if elected formally affirm that what happened in 1915 to the Armenian minority living in Turkey constituted genocide. Obama’s statement adopts strong language of condemnation: “We recall the horror of what happened ninety-nine years ago, when 1.5 million people were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” He added, “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed,” apparently seeking to console those who expected more, while refraining from crossing the red line associated with the G-word, which is what Armenians were waiting for. Obama calls for a “full, frank, and just acknowledgement” of the facts as being in the interests of all sides, and part of the struggle to “build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future,” and with a nod toward national humility Obama observes that Armenian/Turkish reconciliation should go forward “as we [in America] strive to reconcile some of the darkest moments in our own history.” But this is not enough to satisfy those who articulate the views of the Armenian campaign that will settle for nothing less than the unambiguous avowal that the Armenian ordeal was ‘genocide.’ Any other description of these events is dismissed as unacceptable, being regarded as evasive or denialist in relation to this insistence on the word.
Oddly, the complaints about Erdogan’s response to the 1915 anniversary are rather similar, although his rhetoric is more problematic in relation to how the events in question should be historically understood. For Erdogan, many ethnicities suffered unjustly during the final stage of the Ottoman Empire, including Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Armenians and millions of others during this “difficult period.” He calls for an approach that appreciates “all the sufferings endured…without discriminating as to religion or ethnicity.” And further, that no justice is rendered by “constructing hierarchies of pain nor comparing and contrasting suffering.” Erdogan pushes back against Armenian pressures by saying “using the events of 1915 as an excuse for hostility against Turkey and turning the issue into a matter of political conflict is inadmissible.” In effect, Erdogan repudiates the major premise of the Armenian campaign.
Erdogan articulates, as well, an approach that Turkey has more broadly embraced in its sponsorship (with Spain) of the Alliance of Civilizations: “The spirit of the age necessitates dialogue despite differences, understanding by heeding others, evaluating means for compromise, denouncing hatred, and praising respect and tolerance.” More concretely, he repeats the call for “a joint historical commission,” which would have the benefit of an expanded access to the extensive Turkish archives now available to all researchers. Along these lines, Erdogan also proposes that the diverse peoples of Anatolia, who lived together peacefully for centuries, “talk to each other about the past with maturity and to remember together their losses in a decent manner.” And somewhat piously at the end, “it is with this hope and belief that we wish the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the early twentieth century rest in peace, and we convey our condolences to their grandchildren.”
As might be expected, the Armenian reaction to such sentiments is one of anger, and feelings of disappointment that can be summarized by the reaction, ‘nothing new.’ Erdogan’s message is the familiar Turkish refrain that refuses to accept the central Armenian grievance—that Armenians were the main target of the lethal Ottoman policies of 1915 to such a deliberate and systematic extent as to justify the label of ‘genocide.’ The Armenian campaign for rectification is centered upon the unconditional demand that governments throughout the world, especially Turkey, and secondarily, the United States, confirm that what took place was genocide. For this reason, although the differences between what Obama and Erdogan had to say are significant, even profound, the Armenian reactions are almost equally dismissive.
To some extent, more nuanced Armenian responses to Obama and Erdogan might help lead toward a more constructive approach to persisting tensions. After all, Obama basically subscribes to the Armenian understanding of what took place in 1915, while Erdogan rejects the far more basic idea that Armenian suffering is of such a grave character as to warrant special consideration. It would seem desirable and reasonable for Turkey to move beyond this view of plural suffering to a willingness to accept the historical narrative long convincingly put forward by respected scholars and representatives of the Armenian and international community, and concentrate attention on how this terrible past episode may be properly acknowledged during 2015, a hundred years later. The responsible debate at this time is about the legal status of the 1915 events, taking the historical facts as sufficiently established as to not require further investigation. Indeed, if the Turkish government were willing to make this concession, it might ease the way toward creating a process with some real prospect of mutual accommodation. From this perspective, it should be possible to start by agreeing with the descriptive accuracy of Obama’s formulation and move beyond what Erdogan proposes while incorporating his remarks encouraging dialogue and tolerance.
What seems most helpful at this time is shifting away from a focus on the historical interpretation of the events of 1915 toward a consideration of how to achieve an agreed rendering of the legal and semiotic issues that are the true residual core of the controversy. Such a shift will at least allow us to understand the overriding importance attributed by both the Armenian community and the Turkish government to whether the word genocide should be treated as applicable or non-applicable in the good faith search by the parties for justice and reconciliation. In the spirit of moderation, it needs also to be realized that time has passed, that the hurt of such remembrances can never be fully assuaged, and that the best that can be achieved is some compromise between remembering and forgetting. Such a compromise is essential if the shared objective of the Armenian community and Turkey is to escape finally from the twinned entrapments of embitterment and rationalization.
It is astonishing to read that Mr. Falk does not agree with characterizing what happened to the Armenians during 1915-23 as genocide, knowing that Jurist Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide and applied it first to describe the barbarity that befell the Armenians at the hands of the Turkish state.
It is not only the Armenians who properly characterize the events as genocide, but the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) and most historians (not employed by the Turkish state).
Dr. Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polish-Jewish descent, played an important role in compelling the United Nations to adopt the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948.
When asked how he became interested in genocide, Dr. Lemkin explained: “I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times, first to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action, and after[wards] the Armenians got a very rough deal at the Versailles Conference because their criminals were guilty of genocide and were not punished”.
Prior to the use of the word “genocide”, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and other world leaders described the events as the “Armenian holocaust.”
Mr. Falk, genocide is a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. To bring about the disintegration of the political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
The Turks have not only murdered humans, destroyed an ancient culture, civilization and rewritten history, but the Turks continue to legitimize the act as well as the racist ideology that led to the act.
Genocide Acknowledgment without Accountability is hollow and meaningless – it is worse than denial. No amount of apology or acknowledgment will ever be sincere or enough – it is Genocide acknowledgment with accountability that matters.
Mr. Falk, your attempt to defend Turkey form the worst crime humanity has given a name is a disservice to humanity.
As for reconciliation, with all due respect, Armenians are not related to Turks nor do they belong to the same family; and there was never friendly relations to restore under the oppressive Ottoman Sultanate rule and its inheritor the Turkish state.
Armenians certainly look forward to an amicable neighborly relations (once Turkey removes its 22 years of economic-militarized land-border blocked of Armenia); but first Turkey needs to shun and stop legitimizing the racist ideology that led to the Turkish crime of genocide and acknowledge the genocide with accountability.
Your balanced “on the one hand we have a thumb and four fingers and on the other hand we four fingers and a thumb” analysis of the president’s waffle in his annual Ankara-approved statement on the Armenian Genocide doesn’t seem to hit the real target.
By using the term “meds yeghern,” the president is speaking to the Armenians and is saying, “Hey, you stupid people, I know two Armenian words.” Had he used two other words–”Armenian Genocide”–he would have been speaking to the world. And he would be using the words that unbiased historians have been using.
That he refuses makes him a liar, pure and simple. Or a hypocrite, pure and simple.
He wants us to believe that he has not changed from the views he expressed as a senator and as a candidate for the nomination and as the nominee, but we Armenians are, somehow, to sympathize with him when he, in effect, confesses that his Turkish masters have forbade him–and his secretaries of state–from using the words “Armenian” and “Genocide” on the same day.
We Armenians want the president to utter the words “Armenian Genocide” because the word “genocide” has its origin in what happened to the Armenians beginning in April 1915–according to Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word “genocide.” Had he used the word “phistaris” to describe those events, then we Armenians would expect our president to utter that word. It is that pure and that simple, Mr Falk.
Andrew Kevorkian
Philadelphia, PA
The word genocide has legal responsibilities. Genocide is a crime – the worst crime humanity has given a name. It is punishable by law and the guilty is accountable for the crime.
The US, UK and Israel would like to shield Turkey from accountability for the crime of genocide. Genocide acknowledgment without accountability is hollow and meaningless – much worse than denial. Accountability is for land, reparation and restitution.
Accountability for land-acquired-by-way-of-genocide; accountability for the reparation of the wealth of the Armenians acquired-by-way-of-genocide; accountability for restitution to restore everything Armenian that has been destroyed, erased, stolen, renamed, etc. that was originally Armenian.