Lemkin Institute: By parroting Turkish narrative of 1915-1923events,  Armenian premier risks absolving Turkiye of its responsibility for  the Armenian Genocide

ArmInfo. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention drew attention to the policies of Armenian  Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and members of his team, which are at odds with the fundamental principles of genocide prevention, genocide recognition and justice, and which directly relates to Armenian  national security issues.

Thus, the Institute's statement notes, in particular: "In the wake of  the Artsakh genocide, the Lemkin Institute remains committed to  engaging in active prevention work in the South Caucasus while  advocating for justice and accountability. While we do not generally  involve ourselves in domestic affairs of states unless there is an  internal threat of genocide, we must address concerns stemming from  recent statements made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan  that appear to diverge from fundamental principles of genocide  prevention, genocide recognition, and transitional justice, and that  directly relate to issues of Armenian national security.  We are  particularly perplexed and alarmed by aspects of Prime Minister  Pashinyan's commemorative statement on 24 April 2024 (Armenian  Genocide Remembrance Day), as well as a recent interview with  Pashinyan's associate Hovik Aghazaryan questioning Armenia's legal  basis to pursue justice against Turkiye, and discussions led by Civil  Contract party member and parliamentarian Andranik Kocharyan about  compiling a list of genocide victims.  On 24 April, Armenian Genocide  Remembrance Day, the Armenian Prime Minister released an official  commemorative statement in which he appears to engage in victim  blaming with the purpose of questioning the accountability of Turkiye  and Azerbaijan for the crime of genocide. His statement further  appears to erase the ongoing threats posed to Armenia by Turkiye and  Azerbaijan by reframing them as the baseless trauma-induced fears  within Armenian society. Pashinyan's apparent agreement with key  points in T rkiye and Azerbaijan's denialist narratives as well as  his apparent embrace of these countries' assertions that Armenia is  the obstacle to peace in the South Caucasus have met with sustained  controversy within the Armenian public.  Perhaps most striking about  Pashinyan's statement on the genocide was the absence of any mention  of aggressors. In paragraph three, for example, Pashinyan -  discussing the period in the Ottoman Empire leading up to the 1915  genocide - cryptically asserted that"...the Armenian people, who had  no statehood, had lost their statehood centuries ago, and essentially  had forgotten the tradition of statehood, became victims of  geopolitical intrigues and false promises, lacking first of all a  political mind capable of making the world and its rules  understandable." This statement seems to assert that Armenians  mysteriously experienced genocide due to their own witlessness. By  asserting that Armenians were solely "victims of geopolitical  intrigues and false promises," Pashinyan further disregards the  long-term and multi-layered historical oppression of Armenians in the  Ottoman Empire as well as the deep and visceral contempt for  Armenians among members of the Committee of Union and Progress, the  ruling party during the genocide. In other words, Pashinyan's  statement fails to recognize the role played by the ethnic,  religious, and cultural animosity for Armenians in the Turkic  supremacist campaign of extermination that targeted Armenians during  World War I.  Furthermore, instead of attributing blame for the  genocide to the leaders of the Ottoman Empire during World War I,  Pashinyan redirects attention towards Armenians, and specifically  their apparent incapacity to understand politics at the time. He  appears to be referencing the actions of the Russian Empire and  Western powers during that era, who promised to protect Armenians but  did not follow through, which aggravated the Ottoman leaders' sense  of external threat to the empire and drew negative attention to the  Armenians as 'foreign agents'.  However, he does not state this  outright; instead he seems to believe that Armenians brought the  genocide upon themselves by misunderstanding the political terrain.  Pashinyan's talking points in this passage seem ironic, given that he  has himself embraced Western offers to save Armenia from its hostile  neighbors. Yet, his talking points also echo the official position of  Turkiye regarding the Armenian Genocide which justified it by  contracting "against an onslaught of external invaders and internal  nationalist independence movements". By parroting the Turkish  narrative of the events of 1915-1923, the Armenian Prime Minister  risks absolving Turkiye of its responsibility for the Armenian  Genocide, downplaying all previous acknowledgment efforts.  Further,  it may substantially hamper the continuing work on international  recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Turkish accountability -  something that the worldwide Armenian diaspora, as well as genocide  scholars and activists, have been fighting for.  Pashinyan's argument  that "Armenian people, who had no statehood, had lost their statehood  centuries ago, and essentially had forgotten the tradition of  statehood" inexplicably plays into the denialist agenda of Turkiye  and Azerbaijan by obliquely mischaracterizing Armenian efforts to  gain equal rights and human security in the Ottoman empire with  foolish attempts to exercise a quest for independent statehood for  which they had no capacity. The vast majority of Armenians under  Ottoman rule were not seeking secession, but rather security and  justice. Pashinyan's words directly echo the official Turkish view of  the Armenian people as rebellious "traitors" who collaborated with  hostile European powers to bring about the dissolution of the Ottoman  Empire, and who therefore betrayed the country. In fact, in this  passage, Pashinyan seems to be making the case that Armenians can  only avoid future genocides by capitulating to present-day Turkiye's  expansionist designs.  Pashinyan clearly sought in his speech to  challenge the wisdom of seeking accountability from Turkiye. He noted  that "[Armenians] must stop the searches of a homeland, because we  have found that homeland, our Promised Land.but the found and real  homeland, in the person of the Republic of Armenia." While land  disputes arising from genocide can certainly set the stage for  another genocide of the landless survivors, jettisoning the rights to  memory and to property is not something that can be done by a leader  as a fait accompli.  While certainly the modern Republic of Armenia  deserves celebration as a homeland for all Armenians, the  millenia-long presence of Armenians in the region known as  'historical Armenia' (including Western Armenia, Nakhijevan, and  Artsakh) should not be ignored. Indeed, Turkiye should be brought to  understand that it must seek reconciliation with Armenia - not the  other way around.  Alarmingly, Pashinyan's words come shortly after  Hovik Aghazaryan, Armenian National Assembly member and ally to Nikol  Pashinyan, stated in an interview that "[b]ecause the Genocide took  place in the Ottoman Empire.We as a state did not exist then, so we  cannot be the demanding party. We cannot demand anything from  Turkiye.Based on what international standards?" Aghazaryan displays a  startling lack of understanding of transitional and restorative  justice mechanisms in the wake of mass atrocity, which unfortunately  only helps Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Ilham Aliyev avoid historical  responsibility for the Armenian Genocide. Furthermore, this narrative  could potentially weaken international efforts to recognize and  address the Armenian Genocide by casting doubt on Armenia's legal  basis to pursue justice.  It is crucial to recognize that the absence  of statehood at that time does not diminish Armenians' status as  victims of genocide or negate their right to seek justice for the  crimes committed against their ancestors. Other indigenous groups who  have experienced genocide have pursued justice long after the fact,  including the Herero and Namaqua people in Namibia and indigenous  Canadians, Australians, and Americans.  The point of the recent spate  of cryptic messages from Civil Contract Party members seems to be  summed up in a passage in Pashinyan's statement that casts doubt on  the capacity of the Armenian nation to properly analyze reality.   Pashinyan suggested that the trauma of the genocide (referred to here  by its Armenian name, Meds Yeghern, or 'Great Evil Crime') is  coloring the perspective of Armenians on the current crisis in the  South Caucasus:  "Meds Yeghern became a nationwide tragedy and grief  for us, and without exaggeration, is a predetermining factor for our  socio-psychology. Even today, we perceive the world, our environment,  ourselves under the dominant influence of the mental trauma of the  Meds Yeghern, and we have not overcome that trauma. This means that,  being an internationally recognized state, we often relate and  compete with other countries and the international community in a  state of mental trauma, and for this reason, sometimes we cannot  correctly distinguish the realities and factors, historical processes  and projected horizons." Pashinyan's talking point here echoes  language one often hears in Western policy circles, which suggest  that Armenians have nothing real to fear from Turkiye and Azerbaijan  and instead are exhibiting a kind of 'genocide syndrome' that makes  them poor reporters of their own conditions. While the Lemkin  Institute does not deny that communities that have experienced  genocide are irredeemably impacted by that experience, we dispute the  psychologization and pathologization of that experience, which  suggests that the lessons learned make people unnecessarily alert. In  our experience, genocide survivors and their descendants have a very  keen read on the world and are well positioned to see genocides  around them, including threats of genocides against their identity  group.  It is important to note that Turkish President Erdogan stated  only a day before, referring to Armenia, that, "[i]t is always better  to act on the realities of the time than to act on fictional  historical narratives that have nothing to do with reality. Pashinyan  has already understood this." It's deeply troubling for the Armenian  Prime Minister thought to align his commemorative remarks with with  the stance of Turkiye's premier, especially considering Erdogan's  consistent denial of the Armenian Genocide.  Pashinyan ends his  statement with another baffling point, this one about the idea of  "Never Again." "Never again," he said. "We should not say this to  others, but to ourselves. And this is not an accusation against us at  all, but.only we,[sic] are responsible and the director of our  destiny and we are obliged.to carry that responsibility in the domain  of our sovereign decisions and perceptions." It is hard to read this  sentence as implying anything except that the responsibility for  preventing genocide by Turkiye and Azerbaijan rests on the Armenian  people themselves. In fact, Pashinyan's use of the word "responsible"  suggests that he views the genocide as a punishment for their  "mistakes" under the Ottomans. This framing shifts the burden for  preventing future atrocities onto the victims of genocide, which is  unfair and unjust. Such victim blaming is a denial technique used by  perpetrators and occasionally a defense mechanism among members of  the victimized group who resent past vulnerability and feel shame.  However it is used, victim blaming always expresses hostility to the  victimized group, which is never to blame for genocide.  Finally, and  worryingly, this statement lacks any mention of a call for collective  and international action to uphold and advocate for prevention and  recognition, absolving other nations and actors of their obligations  to intervene in cases of genocide.  Armenian concerns about  Pashinyan's April 24 statement must be understood in the context of  other baffling statements from Civil Contract party members this  spring, which have made Armenia's land concessions to Azerbaijan all  the more alarming. On April 16 Armenian MP Andranik Kocharyan claimed  that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was planning to compile a  comprehensive list of victims of the Armenian Genocide to establish  irrefutable documentation of the genocide's victims and to verify  "where, how and under what conditions" they were killed. He  emphasized the importance of this list for future foreign relations,  suggesting that without it, the genocide could be denied by the  "other side" (i.e. Turkiye). Kocharyan later retracted his claims  following criticism, stating that Pashinyan had not actually aimed to  compile such a list and that the topic was not under discussion  within the ruling party.  Armenian genocide scholars were alarmed by  this statement, as Turkiye has been demanding such a list since the  1960s in its efforts to deny the Armenian genocide. Retrieving  comprehensive records of victims poses significant challenges,  primarily due to the absence of official and full documentation for  many individuals who undoubtedly perished. This challenge is  aggravated by historical practices within the Ottoman Empire, which  often neglected records related to its ethnic minorities. Turkiye's  historical erasure and falsification of archives further exacerbate  the issue, making it increasingly difficult to access accurate  information.  As genocide expert Dr. Suren Manukyan, UNESCO Chair in  Genocide Studies at Yerevan State University, pointed out, it is  essential to recognise that the concept of genocide extends beyond  mere mortality statistics. Article II of the Convention on the  Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide does not specify a  particular number of victims required for an act to be classified as  genocide. The number of victims will not change the fact that the  Armenian Genocide remains a genocide. Therefore, fixating solely on  compiling a list overlooks the multifaceted nature of genocide and  its profound implications.  The Armenian Genocide is of course not  the only case where compiling a comprehensive list of victim names is  an impossible task. Despite thorough record-keeping efforts by Nazi  Germany and the availability of relevant archives post-war, along  with systematic interviews conducted with survivors, for example,  there is still substantial disagreement regarding the precise number  of Holocaust victims.  The Turkish state regularly polices statements  commemorating the Armenian Genocide. No country is immune from the  pressure, as was evidenced by President Barack Obama's choice not to  label the massacre of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire as genocide  during the 100th anniversary commemoration in an effort to balance  the US-Turkiye relationship amidst regional instability.  While  recognizing the significance of the centennial to the Armenian  people, the administration emphasized a commitment to addressing  atrocities without explicitly using the term "genocide." This  decision disappointed Armenian- American groups, and even some of  Obama's allies, who saw it as a betrayal of truth and trust.  Pashinyan, though he continues to call the Armenian genocide a  genocide, is nevertheless pursuing talking points that are at odds  with the field of genocide studies, the ample historical  documentation of 1915-1923, as well as the vast majority of  Armenians. Tellingly, this year President Joe Biden released a more  strongly-worded statement than Pashinyan.  Pashinyan bears  responsibility for any statements that deny or downplay the Armenian  Genocide, as they not only jeopardize the painstaking efforts to  secure its recognition, but also establish a dangerous precedent for  the whitewashing of such atrocities amid a shifting geopolitical  landscape that is threatening Armenian sovereignty. While the Lemkin  Institute understands that the Prime Minister is under immense  pressure from his neighbors, as well as foreign powers, to mollify  and perhaps capitulate to the demands of Armenia's hostile and  threatening neighbors, we also know that efforts to appease genocidal  states are almost always in vain. The Prime Minister must uphold the  integrity of historical truth and acknowledge the gravity of genocide  to prevent its recurrence and ensure justice for the victims, while  safeguarding against future atrocities.  This becomes even more  critical in the context of alarming Azerbaijani territorial claims  and its enduring genocidal policies against Armenians over the past  decades. Not confronting historical truths only emboldens those who  seek to erase or distort history for their own agendas. Genocide  stands as one of humanity's darkest crimes, and any attempt to  rationalize, justify, or sanitize it must be rejected. If the Prime  Minister is calling for Armenians to address transgenerational trauma  as a nation, it is important to note that this can only be  accomplished through national discussions and education programs.  Speeches by leaders are not enough. It is essential to confront the  past, but it is also essential to hold perpetrators accountable.  As  an organization dedicated to genocide prevention and the promotion of  accountability and justice, we urge Prime Minister Pashinyan to  reconsider his statements and reaffirm Armenia's commitment to  pursuing justice for the Armenian Genocide.  The Lemkin Institute  must underscore the fact that the threat to peace and security in the  South Caucasus is not Armenia, but rather Azerbaijan and Turkiye,  both of which harbor pan-Turkic aspirations, continue to promote  genocidal Armenophobia globally, and have shown no interest in  demonstrating respect for Armenian identity, culture, or sovereignty.  These leaders, and the publics they serve, should be the ones called  upon to examine their social psychology in the name of creating  peace.  It's imperative for all leaders to stand firmly against  genocide and its denial while working toward acknowledging historical  truths to foster healing and prevent future atrocity crimes. It is  harmful and unacceptable for the leader of a nation that has  experienced genocide to engage in narratives crafted by perpetrators  to deny their responsibility. Peace cannot be forged through lies,  nor can genocidal states be assuaged by rhetorical capitulation. When  leaders deny or downplay genocides, it sets a dangerous precedent  that can embolden perpetrators and diminish the urgency of preventing  future atrocities."