Saturday, December 20 2014

Can we expect new recognitions of the
Armenian Genocide after Bolivia’s decision to do it?

 

Recognizing the fact of the Armenian Genocide has
always been an act of civic courage for the countries whose governments were
the allies of the Ottomans or preferred closing eyes on their crimes. On the
other hand, this shows the maturity of the civil society, the politicians who
express the public sentiments, and the level of civilization. Loud statements
on commitments to democracy and human rights not ways reflect the real state of
affairs in the public of countries. These processes are developing and the
attitude to genocide is becoming more like 'a litmus paper' of that processes.
I am sure more countries will follow Bolivia's example and respond to the
tragedy of Armenians and other Christian peoples of the Ottoman Empire ahead of
the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

 

Some Armenian experts say that this is a
dead-end road and that the Armenians should seek not so much the recognition of
a generally-known fact as a compensation for the crimes committed against
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1923 and for their lost property. Is
the current strategy of Armenia and Diaspora correct?

 

I understand the disappointment of Armenians at the position
of the world community, since many countries do not always conceive the things
that are evident to Armenians and the countries that have recognized the
Armenian Genocide. Part
of these countries have no sufficient information, while others display no
interest to the past and seek to settle their present-day problems. Many, for
instance, the United States, prefer keeping silence for practical reasons.
Turkey - is NATO's outpost in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although most of the
States have already recognized and condemned the Genocide of Armenia, it has
not been done at a federal level yet. Even Barack Obama
who promised to recognize and condemn the genocide if elected president, just
used the Armenian equivalent of the Genocide 'Medz Yeghern' in his annual
speech.

In the situation when many states' position is based
on practical considerations it would be unfair of Armenia and Diaspora to give
up the great information and scientific work being conducted by the Armenian
research centers worldwide. The whole mankind needs the truth about the
Armenian Genocide to realize the crimes of the past and learn to prevent such
crimes in the future.

I think the issues of the Armenians' lost properties
and compensation for the crimes should not be removed from the agenda. The
tragic events claimed lives of 1.5 mln Armenians, hundreds of thousands of
Greeks and Assyrians and took away numerous houses, land plots, churches,
schools, hospitals, plants, warehouses with goods, etc.  

The Ottoman government created over 30 commissions,
which were transferring that property to Turks, Kurds, Muslim migrants and
others at low prices. Similar commissions were created even later, during the
period of republican Turkey. Though many successors of the Genocide victims
have property documents of the Ottoman Empire period, as well as banking
documents, the legal prospects belong to those who can submit these documents
to international courts, whose jurisdiction is acknowledged by Ankara. In
Turkey itself such problems may be resolved only if laws on restitution are
adopted.

Though the major part of the Empire's economy was in
the Armenians' hands, the number of the documents preserved since those times
is small. So, the issue of property retrieval and compensation covers an
extremely small part of successors of the Genocide victims. He does not rule
out provokers' claims based on forged documents either. Any such case will
hinder justice restoration and will create a distorted image of Armenian people
for the international community.

So, I think Armenia and Diaspora have a correct
strategy towards international recognition of Armenian Genocide on the
threshold of the centennial anniversary of that tragic date, but the focus on
just material issues is lame from the moral viewpoint and inefficient from the
material viewpoint.

 

Do you think Turkey can give up on its
denialism sooner or later? 

 

Turkey has been passing the process of the ideological
breaking - transition from the nationalistic ideology to the ideas of the
"moderate islamism" for the last years. The legislation of the
country has also changed. Earlier it had categorical rendering of the position
regarding the national minorities, but at present, the rights of the citizens
have been extended. Such processes are not at all direct. However, in general,
reappraisal of values touched both on the past of the country and rendering of
the role of separate persons in the history. Therefore, Turkish intellectuals
started demanding recognition of the crime committed in the past. If 20 years
ago there were several such intellectuals, in the current century they held an
action "Armenians, forgive us" that was accompanied by tens of
thousands signatures. Taking into account that the process is irreversible,
sooner or later the recognition of the crimes of the past will become a moral
necessity for Turkey.

 

The
Russian President’s December visit to Turkey seems to have opened a new page in
the history of Russian-Turkish relations. Some circles in Armenia are already
worried that the events of the 20^th century may recur. Do you share
their opinion? 

 

The Russian president's visit to Turkey earlier this
month actually shows a breakthrough in the Russian-Turkish relations. On the
other hand, the Russia-Turkey relations were developing also before, despite
serious discrepancies. In the Syrian conflict, Russia supported President of
Syria Bashar al Assad from the very beginning. Meanwhile, it was in the
territory of Turkey that the "patchy" Syrian opposition, from
seculars to Islamists, was based. Turkey did not support Russia in the
Ukrainian crisis either and came out against the Crimea referendum. Turkey supported
the Kyev authorities and accused Russia for the crash of the Malaysian Boeing.

There were disagreements also in the past i.e. the
blockade of Armenia and the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. The stands of our
countries differed in the international policy. However, neither Turks nor
Russians have stopped any economic project despite serious political
disagreements. It appears to me that the current development of their relations
is based on that very approach. 

However, any attempt to compare the current situation
with the developments of 1920s is incorrect. All this is in the past. Now,
Russia seeks to maintain the sovereignty of its ally Armenia, to ensure its
security, economic development, though not without attempts to interfere with
its domestic affairs.

 

While speaking at the UN General
Assembly in September, the Armenian President said that the frozen Zurich
protocols would be withdrawn from the Armenian Parliament. Is this a correct
decision and can it change anything in Armenian-Turkish relations?

 

The Zurich Protocols are currently being considered by
many political forces of Armenia as an unviable project. At the moment, it is a
domestic political issue and it is for the Armenians to address it.

 

After withdrawal of the Protocols from the Armenian
Parliament's agenda, Ankara will immediately lay the responsibility "for
disruption of normalization" on Yerevan. So, the Armenian interests will
not benefit from such a step. Consequently, Azerbaijan will take encouragement
from the withdrawal of the protocols, because initially it considered the
possible normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations as "betrayal" by
its strategic ally. In general, the strengthening of the Russian-Turkish
relations may contribute to improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations first of
all in the field of economy, which is also of much importance.