Armenia Creates Muslim Muftiate, Names Imam Trained in Iran to Head It

May 20, 2015 By administrator

The gate of the Blue Mosque in Yerevan, the only mosque in Armenia.

YEREVAN (The Interpreter)—In a step that might seem absurd given the composition of Armenia’s population but that appears likely to send shockwaves through the Caucasus and perhaps further, the Assembly of Muslims of Armenia has created the position of mufti for the republic and named Arsen Safarian, a graduate of an Iranian seminary in Qum, to head it.

There are three reasons for thinking that this move may have far more consequences than a first glance might suggest. First, the Assembly of Muslims of Armenia explicitly views the new muftiate — an Islamic administrative territorial entitiy — as the supervisory body for Muslims not only in Armenia but in Karabakh, a further challenge to the restoration of Azerbaijani control there.

Second, this move challenges the Baku-based Muslim Spiritual Directorate (MSD) of the Caucasus led by Allakhshukyur Pashazade, who claims to supervise Shiites across the former Soviet space, given that Armenian Muslims say the Soviet-era holdover’s religious training is “doubtful.”

And third, this move gives Iran an opening to expand its influence among Shia not only in the post-Soviet space, also a direct challenge to Azerbaijan, but also among the nearly 400,000 Armenian Muslims (the Hemshins) living in the Middle East and Europe and also among the Yezidis who vastly outnumber the Shia in Armenia.

Prior to the Karabakh war, there were thousands of Azerbaijani Muslims in Armenia, as there were Armenians in Azerbaijan, but most of them have fled, and Muslims in Armenia number only about 1,000 people in all; and there is only one working mosque. In addition, there are Muslim Kurds and the Yezidis, a group some but not all count as Islamic.

The small size of the Muslim community in Armenia and Karabakh thus strongly suggests that the creation of a Yerevan muftiate is more about foreign than domestic policy and may advance Iranian interests, undermining the Baku MSD and giving Iran another channel to spread its influence.

Turkey resentful of Germany and Vatican over Armenian issue – Hurriyet Daily News

May 20, 2015 By administrator

By Barçın Yinanç

Almost a month has passed since April 24, the date that marked the 100th anniversary of the 1915 Armenian tragedy.

No one is talking about it in Turkey any more. Naturally, it is no longer on the world’s agenda. But I am sure that both in Yerevan and Ankara a general assessment is being made about this important turning point.

One thing is for sure: Turkey was caught at a time when it is not enjoying a particularly bright image internationally. Despite this, April 24 passed leaving behind minimum damage as far as Turkey’s bilateral relations are concerned.

However, it seems that Turkey remains particularly resentful of two international actors. One of these is the Vatican and the other is Germany.

The Pope’s reference to the Armenian tragedy as “the first genocide of the 20th century” came as a shock to Turkey, as diplomatic representatives of the Holy See had assured to the very last minute that Pope Francis would refrain from using the “G word.”

In fact, the Turkish ambassador to the Vatican had even been scheduled to attend a mass to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the tragedy, in the expectation that Pope Francis would talk of “shared grievances.” What would have been a diplomatic embarrassment was averted, as at the last minute the Turkish envoy did not go, after he was informed about the Pope’s intention. The ambassador, who was recalled to Ankarafor consultations, will not return to the Vatican until at least the end of the summer.

Ankara believes that Pope Francis’s statement had a multiplier effect throughout the world. The Pope’s statement was followed by decisions from the parliaments of Luxembourg and Austria, which recognized the killings of Armenians at the hands of theOttoman Empire during World War I as genocide.

Germany’s stance, on the other hand, while it was not anticipated, did not come as a huge surprise. Ankara believes that Germany is an active behind-the-scenes actor to promote the view that the Armenian tragedy is the first genocide of the 20th century. Several projects aimed at proving that the Armenian massacres amounted to genocide, supported and financed by the German institutions, seem to have strengthened views among Turkish officials that Germany is seeking to relativize the Holocaust.

German President Joachim Gauck used the “G word” at a religious ceremony held at the Berlin Cathedral. Beyond this, the Turkish side seems to be very concerned aboutGerman initiatives to include this issue in the curriculum in a way that will also affect the children of Turks living in Germany.

VIENNA: Armenia Team Advances to Eurovision 2015 Final (Video)

May 20, 2015 By administrator

VIENNA, Austria (A.W.)–Armenia, represented by the group “Genealogy,” has moved forward to the final stage of the Eurovision 2015 contest. Armenia was one of 16 countries taking part in the first semi-finals in Vienna on May 19.

Armenia, Belgium, Greece, Estonia, Serbia, Hungary, Russia, Albania, Romania, and Georgia qualified during the first semi-final round.

The second semi-final round will take place on May 21, when 17 more countries will compete to move onto the final stage of the contest.

Below is a video of Armenia’s performance.

On March 12, Armenia released its Eurovision 2015 song entry, “Don’t Deny.” The song enraged some in neighboring Azerbaijan, which claims the lyrics carry a political message. The Armenian delegation denies any specific political subtext in the song.

Along with the release of the song and its music video, Inga Arshakian of Armenia was revealed as the final performer of Genealogy. Arshakian joined Stephanie Topalian, Essaï Altounian, Vahe Tilbian, Mary-Jean O’Doherty Vasmatzian, and Tamar Kaprelian, who hail from Europe, Asia, America, Africa, and Australia, respectively—and are all of Armenian origin.

According to the official website of the Eurovision Song Contest (Eurovision.tv), this is the first time a country is participating with performers from different parts of the world.

A few days following the release, the Armenian delegation announced that it would rename the song to “Face the Shadow” in order to suppress concerns of a political theme and to “strengthen” its themes.

The music for Armenia’s entry was written by award-winning Armenian musician and composer Armen Martirosyan, who also composed Armenia’s entry into the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest, “Apricot Stone.” The lyrics to the song were penned by Inna Mkrtchyan; the music video was directed by renowned Armenian director, Aren Bayadyan.

The finals take place on May 23, when 27 countries compete for first place. The 10 qualifying countries from both semi-finals will qualify to the finals, where they will join the host nation Austria and the five main sponsoring nations: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, and Australia, which was invited this year to commemorate the contest’s 60th anniversary.

DENMARK Following Turkish threats of vandalism, genocide postponed the inauguration of the memorial

May 19, 2015 By administrator

The memorial to the genocide of the Armenians on the occasion of its 100th anniversary, which was inaugurated in Copenhagen (Denmark) 23 May was postponed in September writes the Danish website thelocal.dk. The memorial from a height of 9 meters that had to be exposed on site Kultorvet of the Danish capital will not be exposed as a result of vandalism threats. Turkey, through its ambassador in Copenhagen has strongly protested against the erection of this memorial. Given the risk of vandalism, Ambassador of Armenia in Copenhagen Hratchia Aghadjanian postponed the inauguration.

Krikor Amirzayan

First street protest by Turkey’s Armenians “Camp Armen” the Armenian orphanage

May 18, 2015 By administrator

Rakel Dink (C), widow of slain Turkish-Armenian editor Hrant Dink, walks toward the Agos newspaper office during a demonstration

By Sibel Hurtas Contributor, Al Monitor

Armenian youths in Turkey have launched a protest campaign against the demolition of Camp Armen, the Armenian orphanage that housed hundreds of Armenian children in summer sessions. The Armenian community demands the orphanage be preserved and handed over to it. This does not sound likely, but it is significant as being the first street protest by Turkey’s Armenians to express their demands in recent times.

Camp Armen symbolizes the long saga of the deportation and massacres Armenians suffered on Anatolian soil. Its history starts with the purchase of a plot of land by Gedikpasa Armenian Protestant Church from a private party to house Armenian orphans who lived in Anatolia and were labeled as “sword leftovers” by the Armenians. The orphanage camp was built in 1962 by the orphans themselves under supervision of a master builder.

The existence of the orphanage camp, where 1,500 children were housed and educated, was endangered by a decision by the Court of Appeals in 1974, ruling that foreign foundations cannot own immovable property. The state, empowered by the court decision, seized the orphanage in 1986 and returned the property to its original owner free of charge, including the buildings on it.

The owner couldn’t cope with the implications of owning an orphanage camp and immediately resold it. The new owners, once they found out the background of the orphanage camp, also sold the property without touching it. The property remained abandoned, untouched for a while. In 2008, the Aydinlar family, one of the richest families in Turkey, bought the property and this year decided to build on the lot.

This is why on the morning of May 6, bulldozers approached walls built with the hands of the camp’s orphans. Armenians, when informed of the demolition, rushed to the scene and stopped the bulldozers from razing the structure. Armenian activist Garo Paylan found the new owners and requested they postpone the demolition until after the June 7 general elections. The new owners agreed.

At the moment, a part of Camp Armen is crumbling, but most of it is still standing. It has become the symbol of a new Armenian attitude. Since May 6, Armenians have been standing guard around the clock in front of the building. This can well be interpreted as a first such move in the recent history of Armenians in Turkey.

The protests and posting of Armenian guards led to some colorful displays. A huge banner that says “Camp Armen should be returned to the Armenian people” was hung on the building. Armenian musicians showed up to play music.

Rakel Dink, the wife of Hrant Dink, the slain editor-in-chief of the Armenian newspaper Agos that has an important place for Turkey’s Armenians, is one of the ardent supporters of the protest. Hrant and Rakel Dink attended the camp; during the discussions that took place in front of the building, Rakel Dink told the youths standing guard about their days in the orphanage camp.

The goal of the protest is to restore Camp Armen to its original status. They have started an Armenian Workshop. Ani Balikci, the mother of Armenian Sevag Balikci, who was killed by another soldier on April 24, 2011, while he was doing his national service, is giving Armenian lessons. They are planting trees and watching documentaries. Political parties, civil society organizations, university students and activists frequently visit the Armenian protesters to express solidarity.

Garo Paylan, an Armenian activist and a candidate for the pro-Kurdish People’s Democracy Party in the June 7 elections, told Al-Monitor, “This place was seized by an action of the state. We want it returned but I don’t think the state can do it just like that. We had thousands of properties confiscated like this. If the state returns Camp Armen, then it will have to return the others.”

From what Paylan said, we understand that the return of the orphanage camp to Armenians is not likely. But the fact that it encouraged Armenians to take to the streets to demand their rights vocally and visibly is important. The Armenian community, which until now has refrained from taking a position against injustice and unfairness, is perhaps showing that its traditional reticence is a thing of the past and that the community is becoming politicized.

Paylan said that in recent history there has been no such public protest apart from the funeral of Hrant Dink. He said, “The fact is the Armenian community is becoming truly politicized after [the killing of] Hrant Dink. There are now more Armenian actors who are more sensitive. They have orators and spokesmen. But their pigeon jitters still prevail. [Hrant Dink used to define Armenian fears as ‘pigeon jitters.’] That fear is still there, but alongside politicized people. We now have people and actors of divergent views who are active in various political parties, indicating that our community is increasingly politicized and ready to react to unfair practices.”

Sibel Hurtas

Contributor, Turkey Pulse

Sibel Hurtas is an award-winning Turkish journalist who focuses on human rights and judicial and legal affairs. Her career includes 15 years as a reporter for the national newspapers Evrensel, Taraf, Sabah and HaberTurk and the ANKA news agency. She won the Metin Goktepe Journalism Award and the Musa Anter Journalism Award in 2004, and the Turkish Journalists Association’s Merit Award in 2005. In 2013, she published a book on the murders of Christians in Turkey. Her articles on minorities and unresolved killings appear on the Faili Belli human rights blog.

Youth of the European People’s Party approves resolution on Armenian Genocide

May 18, 2015 By administrator

The 10th Congress of the Youth of the European People’s Party (YEPP) approved a resolution recognizing and condemning the genocides of Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians.

The document reads, in particular:

“The youth wing of the European People’s Party urges the member states of the EU and the European Council, as well as the international organizations, to recognize and restore the historical reality in memory of the victims of the genocides of the Armenians, Pontic Greeks and Assyrians. All the interested sides recognize the genocides of the Armenians, Pontic Greeks and Assyrians and adopt April 24 and May 19 as the remembrance days of the Armenian Genocide and the Genocide of Pontic Greeks respectively.”

Chairman of the youth organization of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) noted that the resolution, which had been submitted by the Greek delegation, was unanimously approved.

Book on American saving 250,000 Armenians comes out in US “The Great Fire” Smyrna,

May 18, 2015 By administrator

Turkish nationalist Army entered Smyrna, set it on fire,

On occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the former Maine journalist Lou Ureneck published a new book about the events that happened after almost a decade of killings and dislocations.

The book is called “The Great Fire,” and details the efforts of an American who may have saved a quarter of a million lives, MPBN reports.

According to Ureneck, “Smyrna was the richest, most sophisticated and most cosmopolitan city of the Ottoman Empire, a city of about a half-a-million people on the Aegean coast, the west coast of Turkey. The story takes place in 1922, which is the conclusion of 10 years of religious cleansing. The Armenian Genocide fits into that. In September of 1922, the Turkish nationalist Army entered Smyrna, set it on fire, and began a slaughter of its Christian residents. Smyrna was principally a Christian city. Many different peoples lived there: Greek Christians, Armenian Christians, Jews, Turks, Europeans, but it was predominantly a Christian city and a Greek Christian city. So a slaughter was commenced and a terrible humanitarian situation developed. People were starving, they were without water, disease was rampant in the city. The Turkish Army separated men from women and they were marching the men into the interior of Turkey, not unlike what had happened in 1915 and 1916 to the Armenians during those deportations.՞

The author of the book also said: “ The great powers at the time, principally the United States, Britain, France, and Italy, all had warships in the harbor, but they all elected not to get involved. And, at that point, miraculously really, a minister, a small town minister from upstate New York who had a minor job with the YMCA in Smyrna, came forward. He felt moved to do something to save the people who he was watching suffer: Asa Jennings. And he set in motion a series of events that ended with the evacuation of a quarter million people. He first paid a bribe to an Italian ship captain and he was able to transport 2,000 people out of the city. And, I don’t want to give too much of the story away, but in time, he came to lead a flotilla of 50 ships. He was able to rescue at least a quarter of a million people from the city of Smyrna, who otherwise probably would have died.”

100th Anniversary Of Armenian Genocide Reflects A Politically Inconvenient Reality

May 18, 2015 By administrator

By Jeffrey Cavanaugh | May 18, 2015

An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in field “within sight of help and safety at Aleppo

A massacre can be termed genocide in one country, an atrocity in another, or something barely worth mentioning in a third. But at what point can we all agree to use the “G”-word? The answer to that question is largely a political matter.

The recent passing of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide is a reminder that not all tragedies are counted the same, and that politics, both at home and abroad, can color our interpretation of history.

In modern Turkey, mention of the genocide is politically unpopular both inside and outside of government. Although officials today admit that atrocities took place, Turkish officialdom insists they were neither planned nor systematically coordinated so as to eradicate the Armenian population. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Turks agree that their country should not label what happened to its Armenian population in 1915 a genocide nor apologize for it.

Such are feelings on the matter in the Republic of Turkey that states wishing to do business with Ankara are well advised to avoid mentioning the “G”-word. Here in the United States, for instance, President Obama pointedly avoided calling the killing of 1.5 million Armenians a genocide even though there was some debate on the issue inside the White House. Instead, he used the term “great calamity,” which sounds like 1.5 million people were killed by accident via happenstance — they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak.

Even U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, not usually one to sound tougher on an issue, used the slightly more descriptive term “atrocity crimes” to describe the genocide.

Israel, which has tried hard to maintain good relations with Turkey in order to balance against its generally unfriendly neighbors, has also tread lightly when it comes to calling a genocidal spade a spade. Officially, Israel, like many more powerful countries, neither recognizes nor denies the Armenian genocide. And although though the Knesset has a debate on the issue every year, the body does not seem likely to change its position any time soon. Given that the founding of the State of Israel was in no small part due to the perpetration of a similar crime against European Jews, Israeli ambivalence on the subject is perhaps the most poignant reminder that national interests nearly always trump historical fact when said facts are entirely too inconvenient.

Other crimes, other times, other places

This tendency to avoid calling something what it is doesn’t just apply after the fact, either. During the Rwandan genocide, for instance, the White House told officials to avoid the use of the “G”-word during that mass slaughter in central Africa and use the euphemism “acts of genocide” instead, although just how many acts were required before a genocide could be labeled as such wasn’t something the Clinton administration was willing to say.

Lest one think this is a problem that only Democratic presidents have, during the Bush years there was also resistance to using the term to describe the goings-on in Sudan’s Darfur region until then-Secretary of State Colin Powell decided to finally call it out as such in 2004.

So, in the recent past, we have three examples of when a genocide is a genocide and when it is something different. Are there others? During the savage little Balkan wars in the 1990s and early 2000s, for instance, the term “ethnic cleansing” was more commonly used, given that atrocities were used to clear unwanted elements from certain territories rather than to eliminate a population entirely. What difference that made to the people on the ground seems rather academic, however. Likewise with the Kurds in Iraq during the 1980s, although when Saddam Hussein finally became an enemy of the U.S. after the 1990s we were quick to pin that label on Baghdad’s actions, too.

Curiously, that tends to be the case with a lot of massacres. When Cambodians were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands by the half-mad Pol Pot and his merry band of Khmer Rouge killers — that was deemed genocide. On the other hand, when Indonesia invaded and occupied East Timor and slaughtered as much of its population as it could, that was something different, as was Jakarta’s earlier mass killing of political opponents in 1965-66. Same, too, in Central America during the 1980s, when peasants and Indians were massacred on a grand scale by right-wing regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador.

Truth is always the first casualty

This tendency to call politically inconvenient violence something other than what it happens to be is endemic to politics, regardless of who is doing the killing or trying to justify or ignore it. All countries do it, and it stems from a basic form of motivated reasoning that is simply part of human psychology. Put very simply: We ascribe good motivations and actions to our own actions and those of our friends, and bad motivations and actions to those who are our adversaries. Thus, a massacre can be termed genocide in one country, an atrocity in another, or something barely worth mentioning in a third. The truth of a given event, as always when it comes to politics, is usually a matter of perspective, regardless of how many people are actually killed.

Understanding this tendency should therefore be front and center when thinking of these grim events as well as the politics that lead up to them. We must accept, no matter how hard it is, that we are not always the “good guys” in our own story. And, indeed, it takes brutal honesty to admit when one’s own country has committed terrible sins in the name of domestic politics or international advantage. After all, no one wants to play the villain, least of all those who have so much to gain, both materially and psychologically, from being the good guy.

So, when you turn on the evening news or read about some terrible conflict in some faraway place, understand that you’re receiving at best an incomplete picture and that we quite often see what we want to believe. This is especially the case when reports from our own media come in about atrocities committed by our adversaries and crimes committed by our own government and allies. Our media almost inevitably plays up reports of the first kind, but downplays the actions of the second.

Being cynical about one’s own side may not make one popular, as those Turks who accept the reality of the Armenian genocide can no doubt attest, but it puts one far closer to the truth that most would readily admit.

Source: mint press news.com

France: Books We have seen hell Armenian Genocide

May 17, 2015 By administrator

Just published “We saw hell,” Simon Hyacinthe, Jacques and Marie-Dominique Rhetore Berré.

One hundred years after the first genocide in history, this book presents the stone of truth, crucially, brought by three Dominican repair of a black hole in our memory that remains denied, obscured or minus.

Held hostage in Mardin, the “Jerusalem of the East” between late 1914 and late 1916, the Marie-Dominique Berré brothers Jacques and Rhetore Hyacinthe Simon attend helplessly programmed annihilation, industrial, systematic Armenians that accompanies the killing to the string Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs. Eyewitnesses, they will do the chroniclers of the unspeakable and record, each for its part, this unprecedented unleashing hell on earth.

For the first time, their precise depositions, lucid, terrible gathered in one volume which has unique value. They do not just give a burial to the anonymous victims of mass graves yesterday. They apply for alarm today. While the tragedy of Eastern Christians is repeated under the same heavens and the same indifference, their stories, always documented, sometimes apocalyptic, stand out in retrospect as prophetic.

A testimonial for the recognition of the crime. A will for revival of probity. Essential reading for all those who do not intend to hide behind ignorance and pretend granted: “I do not know.”

Jean-François Colosimo presentation

Dimensions: 155x240x29 – ISBN: 9782204104036 352 pages – 24,00 € Editions du Cerf

AGOS NEWSPAPER To question the official discourse is the way to recognition

May 17, 2015 By administrator

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