11.07.2015 Views

Community - Armenian Reporter

Community - Armenian Reporter

Community - Armenian Reporter

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong> | May 31, 2008NationalWashington briefingPresidentSerge Sargsiangreeting Reps.Adam Schiff andAllyson Schwartz.Photo: Photolure.Young Georgiansprotest theconduct ofparliamentaryelections. Photo:Photolure.by Emil SanamyanCongressionaldelegation in Armenia,regionReps. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.),Allyson Schwartz (D.-Penn.)and Wayne Gilchrest (R.-Md.)visited Baku on May 24–25 andYerevan on May 26–27, meetingwith Azerbaijani and <strong>Armenian</strong>presidents and other officials,their offices reported. The tripwas the first visit to Armenia bymembers of Congress since 2005and was organized through the adhoc House Democracy AssistanceCommission.Rep. Schiff, who representsthe cities of Glendale and Pasadena,with the largest proportionof <strong>Armenian</strong>-American voters inthe United States, told PresidentSerge Sargsian, “We consider Armeniaan important partner andally. Consequently, we wish to asfar as possible assist its politicaland economic progress.”In an interview with RFE/RL <strong>Armenian</strong>Service, Rep. Schiff saidthat he and other members were“concerned with the problems thatoccurred during the election [in Armenia],the violence that occurredafter the election.”“We are here to try to assess thesituation and talk with the <strong>Armenian</strong>government about how wecan help move the government furtherin the direction of democracy,”Rep. Schiff added.Rep. Schiff’s delegation alsomet with aides to Levon Ter-Petrossian, the opposition figureand former president, who focusedon the recent election campaignand its outcome.While in Baku, the members ofCongress heard criticisms of Armeniaand the <strong>Armenian</strong> diaspora,with few details reported.From Armenia the delegation flewon to Pakistan and Afghanistan.Georgian rulingparty election sweepwelcomed, protestedThe National Movement Party ledby President Mikheil Saakashviliswept the May 21 parliamentaryelection winning more than 110seats in the 150-seat legislature,according to preliminary resultsmade available via the Civil.genews portal.The remaining seats were won bythe Nine-party Opposition Alliance(about 16 seats) led by David Gamkrelidze,the Christian DemocraticParty of former TV anchor GiorgiTargamadze (8 seats), the LaborParty of populist politician ShalvaNatelashvili (6 seats), and the oppositionRepublican Party led byDavid Berdzenishvili (2 seats).Three of the seats in parliamentwent to ethnic <strong>Armenian</strong>s, as the <strong>Armenian</strong><strong>Reporter</strong> reported last week.The opposition alliance quicklycalled for annulment of results,pointing to electoral violations. Italso launched several well-attendedprotest rallies and vowed it wouldprevent the new parliament fromconvening.Western observers suggestedthat the government’s efforts tomeet democratic standards for electionswere “uneven and incomplete.”(The observers gave a more upbeatassessment of the presidential electionlast January calling it “democratic.”See this page in the January12, 2008 <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong>.)According to the observers therewere problems with vote count in16 percent of precincts inspected– about the same number asin Georgian, as well as <strong>Armenian</strong>,presidential polls earlier this year.Nevertheless, the U.S. State Departmentwas “encouraged” by what itthought were “improvements” inelection conduct compared to theprevious poll.Georgia has been possibly themost eager ally of the United Statein recent years, sending one of thelargest military contingents in supportof U.S.-led Iraq operations. fSarafian: Genocide deniers weaker today than everA full-length observational documentary,The Blue Book, which had itsU.S. premiere in Pasadena, Calif., onMay 29, tracks historian Ara Sarafianas he argues in the U.K. and Turkeyagainst the official Turkish denialof the <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide. On May28, Vincent Lima asked Mr. Sarafianabout his work on the British ParliamentaryBlue Book on the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide and about his research andadvocacy work in Turkey and beyond.Mr. Sarafian is the director of theGomidas Institute (UK). (Mr. Lima,the editor of the <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong>,is a former director of the GomidasInstitute.)<strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong>: In Blue Book,the documentary, we see you arguingforcefully for the authenticityof the British Parliamentary BlueBook that made the case for the<strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide back in 1916.Do you find that your scholarly andadvocacy work regarding the BlueBook has had an impact?Ara Sarafian: Yes, I think theBlue Book has had an impact, ashas my other documentary workon United States archives. Wheneverthe issue of the Blue Bookcomes up in the United Kingdom,the “Uncensored” or critical editionof the work is cited as the basisof discussion. (James Bryce andArnold Toynbee, The Treatment of<strong>Armenian</strong>s in the Ottoman Empire,1915–1916: Documents Presented toViscount Grey of Fallodon by ViscountBryce [Uncensored Edition], ed. andintro. Ara Sarafian.) Even in Turkeya number of scholars credit thecritical edition in their discussionsof the 1916 work.This work has also had an impactby forcing old-time deniers, mostnotably Sukru Elekdag and JustinMcCarthy, to make changesto their position. For example, theoriginal 1916 work omitted somenames of sources to safeguardthem because they were still in theOttoman Empire in 1916. This informationwas published in a separateconfidential key in 1916. Untilrecently, deniers ignored the existenceof the key and argued thatthe missing names were merely aruse to hide the poor sources underpinningthe 1916 work.Since the publication of the criticaledition in 2000, these deniershave “discovered” the confidentialkey, even though it has been availablesince 1916, including in librariesand archival collections cited bydeniers over the past 30 years. Theyhave been forced to change theirposition with this “discovery” becausethey could no longer simplydeny the existence of the confidentialkey to support their accusations.Now that they are forced toacknowledge the existence of theconfidential key, they insist thatthe content of the key supportstheir thesis. This is simply not trueand their position is now more precarious,even in their own ranks.The critical edition of the BlueBook has had a positive influenceon debates and it serves as a textbookcase of <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocidedenial.Deniers are having ahard time<strong>Reporter</strong>: As we can see in thedocumentary, you have long been afrequent traveler to Turkey, whereyou have done research as well aspublic speaking. Let me ask youfirst about your public engagements:Looking at various groupswithin Turkey – scholars, students,political activists of various stripes,the media, and the public at large– do you see any shift in attitudetoward the Genocide?Sarafian: Yes, I see a change inall of the groups you have mentioned.You only have to followTurkish newspapers or televisionprograms, or speak to students.The deniers are still there, but theyare having a hard time. Turkey is amuch more open society now andthis may paradoxically explain whythere is still a continuous stream ofanti-<strong>Armenian</strong> publications alongsidemore sensible ones in Turkishbookstores. This is not because thedeniers are strong but because theyare weaker today than ever. Theyneed to reinvigorate public supportfor their position.In my experience even someTurkish nationalists have shown aremarkable softening of their positiontoward <strong>Armenian</strong>s regarding1915, typically stating that “somethingterrible happened to <strong>Armenian</strong>sin 1915,” and that “<strong>Armenian</strong>shave a right to be angry,” butinvariably insisting that we shouldnot call all this “genocide.” To methis is a fundamental shift, which,when genuine, is an opening forreal dialogue; and if it is contrived,it is a more sophisticated form ofdenial that also needs to be understoodand addressed.<strong>Reporter</strong>: Do you find that yourarguments are disseminated fairlythrough the Turkish media? WhenI look at stories involving you, yourcritique of <strong>Armenian</strong> scholarsseems to get more play than yourarguments about the Genocide.Sarafian: I always make a pointof calling the events of 1915 a genocide,both to the print media andtelevision. Some Turkish journalsask me additional questions aboutthe Genocide and quoted me talkingabout the issue.Sometimes what is written inTurkish papers regarding what Ihave said is not correct, but moreoften it is correct. As a rule I submitmy interviews in writing sothat there is a record of what Iactually said. Regarding content,it is not surprising that Turkishjournalists ask me critical questionsabout <strong>Armenian</strong> historiography.The same is true for <strong>Armenian</strong>newspapers asking mequestions about Turkish historiography.For example, I have neverbeen asked about limitationsto the <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide thesisby an <strong>Armenian</strong> newspaper, but Ihave been asked about limitationsto Ottoman archives.<strong>Reporter</strong>: I do not understandthe second parallel. In 1985 theTurkish prime minister announcedthat the Ottoman archives are openfor the scrutiny of scholars andthat any work on the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide must account for thesearchives. It is therefore wholly appropriateto ask you, as someonewho has worked in Ottoman archives,whether those archives aretruly open and what they show. Inany case, you have chosen to publishon the matter.On the other hand, why would anewspaper without an ax to grindask you about “limitations to the<strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide thesis”? Haveyou published an article about anyspecific limitation that has beenignored?Sarafian: I think the veracityof the Genocide is well established,but there are some important aspectsof the events of 1915 that canbe questioned. It depends on whatyou ask and how you ask it. For example,one could debate the role ofJemal Pasha and question whetherhe really was part of the so-calledCUP triumvirate that organizedthe Genocide. I have my seriousdoubts and the issue can be debated.Did Ottoman officials try todestroy every single <strong>Armenian</strong> inthe Ottoman Empire in 1915? Notnecessarily, and the issue can bedebated.<strong>Reporter</strong>: The attitude of <strong>Armenian</strong>scholars for many years hadbeen to avoid engaging debatesabout the veracity of the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide. The reasoning has gonesomething like this: people whodeny the genocide are not bona fidehistorians in search of the truth,but agents of the Turkish statewhose mission is to show that the<strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide is not settledhistorical fact. By debating them,we’re confirming that the Genocideis debatable. Do you accept this reasoningtoday?Sarafian: I think we can discernthe real deniers of the genocidefrom those who have genuinequestions to ask, even if they appearnaïve sometimes. It is our jobas scholars to debate such peoplein an appropriate way, in an appropriateforum. I have found thatmany Turks today are interested inthe genocide issue and are open tomeaningful discussion even if theymay not use the “G” word to start.When they recognize the awfultreatment and massacre of <strong>Armenian</strong>sin 1915, I think one can takethe conversation from there.“Scored an own goal”<strong>Reporter</strong>: You had a very publicexchange with Yusuf Halacoglu,the head of the THS, where you issuedpress releases and he grantedinterviews to CNN-Turk. You justattended a meeting in Oslo withJustin McCarthy and others. What,in your view, is to be gained fromthese encounters?Sarafian: When I had my exchangewith Halacoglu regarding acase study on Harput, the initiativecame from me, and I framed theproposal. It was a fair, manageableproposal and the Turkish mediagave it prominence by reportingon it. It was CNN-Turk which askedthe critical question to Halacogluregarding the Ottoman records atthe heart of my proposal, and Halacogluadmitted to a Turkish journalistthat the records I had askedto see did not exist (in Turkish archivestoday). I cannot overstressthe importance of this interview inTurkey.Similarly, one of the biggestnames in Turkish journalism,Mehmet Ali Birand, commentedon Halacoglu’s words regardingContinued on page m

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!