Raymond Kevorkian’s book “The Armenian Genocide”, a leading book in its field, was published in Turkish by the Iletisim publishing house. In addition to the genesis of this test, we talked with Raymond Kevorkian of Turkey’s policies towards the Genocide.
Last week we talked with his translator Ayşen Taşkent Ekmekçi the translation process and the significance of this book for society in Turkey. What is perhaps most remarkable in the book of Kevorkian, who insists on the stages of genocide since the late 19th century until the founding of the Republic of Turkey is that you’ll see various correspondence testimonies and detailed presentation of the places where the massacres took place, region by region, with the lists of perpetrators and victims of these massacres … In addition to the genesis of the book, we discussed with the policies of Kevorkian Turkey to the Genocide.
Can you tell us how the idea for this book came to you? How long have you spent to conduct the research and the drafting?
This kind of work always takes place over a long period. One must first master the subject and sources, and this is not always easy to achieve. The book’s structure is gradually taking shape. Overall, the preparation of this trial took place over more than twenty years. I started by studying the demographic situation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and their presence throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire. This has been the publication of a book that was also published in Turkey there are three years (with Paul Paboudjian ‘1915 Oncesinde Osmanli Imparatortugu’nda Ermeniler [The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of 1915], Aras Publishing House). Known aspects of the Genocide were also revealed it, such as “second phase” of the Genocide, that is to say the slow death of the deportees to concentration camps in Syria and Mesopotamia. However, I have decided to publish this book when I finally had access to exceptionally rich archives of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul (preserved to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem). The study of these documents one by one took two years and I also spent two years writing the actual book.
What was your main motivation for writing a book so complete?
It was clear that the genocidal process had never been studied in depth. My first intention was, on the basis of previous studies on the Armenian presence in Anatolia, to make available to the public, especially to the one who originated or who lives there now a way to help them understand what happened in 1915. That is why I presented a geography of the region Genocide by region. Such micro-history was necessary to carry out this work. But isolating the event was clearly out of the question. I felt it was important to put the events in the Ottoman context. We had to find a balance between the presentation of the fate of the victims and of the intentions of the authors of the Genocide. In addition to the variety of available sources, it was essential to take into account the testimonies of survivors, but by submitting them to filter historical criticism.
What was the reaction in France when the book came out in 2006?
The public, including the Armenians of the second and third generation, has expressed an interest in this book to understand what had happened to their parents, or in other words, how and why they found themselves in France. The book answers questions that many posed to themselves. Historians have also shown interest in this test, which was the result of the work of a historian trained in the French school of historians. The book could also help to erase the remaining doubts in the mind of some historians, still prone Turcologists individuals to align with the official line, despite its dubious credibility, taking over the propaganda of history.
While you were doing your research, what were the differences that have most struck you, considering the regions in which took place on Genocide?
The most remarkable aspect, there’s no doubt, this is the level of planning that gave rhythm to the deportations, which essentially took place in just three months, from June to August 1915. While the methods employed for organizing the deportation convoys are almost identical, we note that in the case of families from Western Anatolia, the head of family was present; by cons, in the provinces of the east, a priority, obviously, for the Turkish authorities young, male adults were executed and the women and children deported without any protection.
What are the main players in the genocide, and what were the relations between them during the genocide?
As for the authors, the ten members of the Central Party of Union and Progress Committee are clearly the key-makers, planners, and are those that have implemented this act of mass violence. These characters, on one hand, had founded the Special Organization ‘Teşkilat Mahsusa-i), the main tool for the destruction of the Armenians to put their dirty work execution, while the other, they managed to involve their actions in local government, which would assume responsibility for compliance with the deportation program.
What does the publication of this book in Turkey important?
This is not the first book published in Turkey on Genocide. However, by its very structure, which not only aims to observe facts from Istanbul, the capital, but also from the provinces, I hope it will be of interest to people living in the affected provinces violence, since these events are part of local history or that of their own family. For each region, with the lists prepared by the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, it is possible to give us the name of the key-characters involved: members of the local organization of Union and Progress, officials of commissions of abandoned goods (Emval- Metruke i) senior officials, police officers, police commissioners, the Special Organization officers (Teşkilat Mahsusa-i), etc., who participated at different levels in the extermination of the Armenian population. I doubt that the descendants of these people can remain indifferent on this subject. This test will probably help students and intellectuals readers to get an idea of the circumstances that gave rise to contemporary Turkey.
What is your assessment of Turkey’s policy on this subject since the founding of the Republic of Turkey?
Note first of all that there is an ideological extension of Union and Progress Committee. The Kemalist regime has managed to homogenize Anatolia demographically by using various methods including assassinations, expulsions, deportations and tax measures, aimed not only the Armenian Genocide survivors, but also the Greeks and Assyrians. Moreover, historians are aware that political and military leaders builders of modern Turkey were, to varying degrees, involved in the extermination of the Armenians, and gave birth to a singular political culture that continues to influence leaders. Under these conditions, the way for the recognition of this history of violence on which the Republic was founded, through the questioning of the principles of the new nation wanted by Turkish Youth and questions to ask themselves about what was done grandparents; or in short, as was the case with the Kurds for decades, to object to the modus operandi of the political machine which, again and again, stigmatizes and excludes all groups that do not flow in the mold of the identity imposed.
For all these reasons, I do not count on rapid transformation of the policy of the Turkish state. Perhaps the change does come from civil society, victim himself, somehow, politics of the state.
“The official denial, although slightly more diplomatic, continuous”
2007, the year of the murder of Hrant Dink, a milestone for Turkish-Armenian. What do you think of the years that followed?
Hrant Dink long and hard about how to get out of the death trap of stigma to a specific community. His statements, as we know, everyone has sometimes provoked strong reactions in the Armenian community, but they have undoubtedly contributed to the maturation of the concept of dialogue – the term reconciliation appears inappropriate for now. His murder and the reactions that followed undoubtedly forced the most radical circles to silence and many friends decided to get more involved in the fight for memory, for a change of the ideology that still permeates deeply Turkey and its state apparatus. Since then, a positive dialogue has emerged in some segments of the Armenian and Turkish civil societies. Obviously, a huge amount of work remains to be done to inform the public and assist in the dissemination of critical views, to convince the public that this process leads to a democratic future for Turkey.
How do you rate the state policy towards the Armenian Genocide from 2006 to today?
Since the entry of Turkey in the accession negotiations to the European Union, it is undeniable that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide has become, even if it is not explicitly written in any document, an essential political condition for the possible integration of Turkey into the EU. The authorities know this very well and have taken some initiatives to create a better image of the country: the restoration of Akhtamar, whose name was Turkified and whose church is topped by a huge Turkish flag, the proposal of the creation of a commission of historians, or rather propagandists that are expected to discuss a topic they have no comprehensive knowledge, are examples. It is believed that some Turkish authorities are considering the next concession to make. An eventual step back from the state directly depend on the pressure exerted by civil society in Turkey, and also from the outside.
What are the differences and similarities in government policy between 1915 and today in the light of current events in the Middle East?
As I said earlier, there is a continuity in the ideological apparatus of the state. Violent practices, the lack of political dialogue, a stubborn refusal to accept the difference of those whose identities other than the official identity complicate the solution of an issue as the Kurdish question. We are now seeing for several months the ambiguous position of the Turkish authorities towards the IE. The main reason, at least for observers who know the area, is that for Turkey, the Kurdish question overcomes priority threats posed by the EI for the Middle East as a whole. We return every time this ideology of exclusion that exists since 1915; a dangerous nationalism that diplomacy strives to compensate.
Maral Dink
05/04/2015
http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/11166/questioning-official-discourse-is-the-path-to-recognition
Translation Gilbert Béguian