Friday, April 17 2015 12:17

Mr. Farmanyan, the process of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide has intensified recently. Many countries and organizations have passed resolutions condemning and recognizing that crime against humanity. What is the reason of such high response to the issue? Is it connected with the activity of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, the Armenian lobby abroad or the campaign timed to the Centenary of the Genocide?

 

- I think, the process of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide cannot be explained with a single factor. Several factors should be considered here. I am speaking about human values, humanism and moral principles that are of fundamental importance for the international policy of many countries. And finally, the foreign political department of Armenia and the Armenian lobby abroad are making their great contribution to the process. The geopolitical interests of some countries also play certain role in it. As for the events timed to the Centennial of the Genocide that are organized inside the country and outside it, they are widely covered by the world media. All these factors together have intensified the process of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, despite the groundless statements by certain political circles claiming that the Armenian-Turkish normalization and the bilateral protocols impede the international recognition of the Genocide.

 

Mr. Farmanyan, what will the recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide by various countries and international organizations give the Armenian people and Armenia as a state, except “moral victory?”

 

- There is also a political dimension of the process. These documents pursue real reconciliation of the two peoples, normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations, opening of borders, and economic cooperation, as a consequence.

 

Some experts and political figures believe that after the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, the country should stop the efforts towards international recognition of that crime and arm with a new strategy and start demanding reparations. What do you think about it?

 

- I am for more realistic approaches. I think, our current steps must pursue two goals: recognition of Genocide by Ankara – which should be achieved through intensive process of the international recognition of that crime and work with the Turkish society - and normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations. At least, these two goals seem more realistic to me considering the current geopolitical situation. I cannot say what will happen next. Other tasks of the Armenian-Turkish relations appeared to be unrealistic so far.

 

Do you think it is possible that Ankara will recognize the Genocide and the Armenian-Turkish relations will be normalized? Will it happen under the new authorities of Turkey?

 

- I feel not a shade of doubt that Turkey will recognize the Genocide of Armenians sooner or later. Furthermore, I am sure that it will happen irrespective of whether that issue is on the foreign policy agenda of Yerevan or not. Time moves along and the Turkish society will sooner or later change its stand on the Genocide under information influence. This trend is already visible.  Under pressure of their own public, the Turkish authorities will be reluctant to recognize their history.

 

Do you mean that the recognition in not connected with the geopolitical factors or domestic policy processes in Turkey?

 

 

- I have said Turkey will sooner or later recognize its own history, and will do it within its own interests. Recognition of Genocide by Ankara implies changes in the narration of Turkey’s history. I think, it is hardly possible under the current authorities in that country. Most probably, it will become possible only under a leadership that will tolerate changes in its own history, or at least, in the Period of the Ottoman Empire and the first years of the Kemalist government.

 

 

Mr. Farmanyan, do you think that the growing international response to the Genocide issue and the latest resolutions recognizing that fact suggest that Turkey’s Gallipoli undertaking has already failed? After all, Turkey sought to overshadow the Genocide Centennial events and international coverage of the issue. 

 

 

-  Sure, the latest processes around the international recognition of the Genocide, active coverage of that topic by the world press prove that Ankara’s idea to celebrate the Gallipoli Victory was unjustified.  Inherently, Turkey has failed to overshadow the Genocide issue and distract the attention of the world community from the Genocide Centennial events. Furthermore, it had the reverse effect and has made Ankara’s denial policy as never evident.

 

 

U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan has said Washington may not send a delegation to the Gallipoli event in Istanbul, as the country did not participate in the WWI. Don’t you think that such reasoning of possible refusal to attend the Gallipoli commemorations is certainly strained?

 

-  The world community is well aware what is the real goal of Ankara’s ideas to celebrate the Gallipoli Victory. We have already mentioned it above. Turkey seeks to overshadow the Genocide Centennial commemorations in Yerevan.  If any country attends the events in Turkey, it will do it only for its geopolitical, political and economic interests anyhow connected with Turkey.  If the U.S. refuses to participate in these events, it means that Washington simply does not want to be part of Ankara’s denial policy.

 

Mr. Farmanyan, given all the above factors and the intensified process of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, may President Barack Obama use the term “Genocide” in his annual address to the Armenian people?

 

- Considering Obama’s expiring term and his policy on Cuba, Iranian nuclear program, and the reform inside the country, I think it may happen that the president uses the term “Genocide” this year, but it will little change the U.S.-Turkey relations.

 

For conclusion, would you comment on Ankara’s actions in response to the latest developments around the Genocide issue?

 

- Ankara’s hysteria, the summoning of the ambassador from Vatican after Pope Francis’s call to recognize the Genocide, and the most recent dismissal of the Turkish prime minister’s adviser Etyen Mahçupyan after he called the events of 1915 as genocide - all this means that the recent processes around the Genocide issue were unexpected for Turkey. Therefore, it makes nervous, ad hoc and hasty actions. As for the Turkey Foreign Ministry’s statement on the European Parliament’s resolution on the Armenian Genocide Centennial, one can get an impression that it is an electoral speech by a nationalist politician rather than a document prepared by the foreign political department.  The Turkish ministry claims that “religious and cultural fanaticism and indifference towards others regarded as different” are laid behind the European Parliament’s resolution. Probably, Ankara meant that the resolution fuels the confrontation between the Christian Europe and Muslim Turkey.  However, these statements by Ankara come to naught due to a single fact – the co-author of the resolution is Co-Chair of the EU-Armenia PCC, parliamentarian Sajjad Karim, who is a British Pakistani Muslim.