Pictures from the Armenian conflict, which Stone terms a civil war, not a genocide., Kathryn Cook / Agence VU
Oct 23, 2011
“Turkey is the only country in the region whose past seems to flow toward a positive outcome, a history with a future. As with any narrative, to make things interesting, you want a sense of progress—otherwise you get that famous definition of history as ‘one damn thing after another.’ The Turks have always played a role in making things happen in the world. For a while they seemed pretty dormant, but I knew it would change.”
As the sun goes down, Prof. Norman Stone is standing on the . . balcony of his residence at Bilkent University in Turkey’s capital, gazing out over gleaming new tower blocks and the Anatolian hills. Ankara looks distinctly affluent these days, with the Turkish economy steadily expanding at 11 percent this year. For two days I have been gently pushing Stone to look back on his career, his decision to leave his post as professor of modern history at Oxford in the mid-1990s and to transplant himself in Turkey, his life before and since. It’s a highly poignant encounter for me, a Turk educated in the U.K., to talk to one of Turkey’s staunchest public enthusiasts—a contrarian posture in any century.
It seems like an appropriate moment for self-assessment: Stone had a minor stroke some months ago. At 70, he’s had to give up drinking and smoking (he was a famous practitioner of both). And he recently published a timely new book, Turkey: A Short History—timely because the world is increasingly curious, not to say concerned, about the strategic direction of his adopted second home, a former hegemon that has rather alarmingly rediscovered its independent spirit in recent years. With Turkey’s newfound influence in the Middle East, with the inchoateness of the Arab Spring, the West holds its breath. Inevitably, what Stone says about Turkey will be closely followed.
“I’ve never had trouble making my opinions heard,” he says in a throaty Scottish chuckle, and one gets a flash of the Oxford don in the ’80s—the hard-living, impish bon vivant who outraged academe with pro-Thatcher polemics and who later became a political adviser to the Iron Lady. Is that why he left Brit-ain, because he had made too many enemies? He chuckles again. “It was simply that I didn’t get paid enough to make a living as a young professor. There was no dignity in it. I started writing for newspapers, which I enjoyed, because frankly in those days the entire world needed an overhaul in ideas to shake off the socialist doldrums. But it did take time away from scholarship, and I wanted to get back to that. No, in the end, I got a respectable offer from Turkey to focus on my studies.”
If Stone won notoriety in journalism, puncturing the stale pieties of the nanny state, his fame as a historian began early and built more slowly. His 1975 book The Eastern Front 1914–1917 became a classic of World War I literature. His expertise as a Sovietologist extended to the Eastern Bloc and its languages—at one point he could study and speak Russian, Hungarian, German, Slovakian, and a smattering of other tongues. “Nobody had really done the spadework in foreign archives. There was a Cold War. As an area of work, it was uncomfortable, thankless and bound up in red tape—and full of apologists for Moscow. But you see, early on, before Turkey, I already had an interest in the world from the Eastern perspective.”
I put it to Stone that he achieved the near impossible by inciting as much outrage while abroad as he did at home. “You’ll always find entrenched sensitivities everywhere,” he says. No sooner had he settled in Turkey than he began (and continues) to offend on such topics as military coups, the Armenian massacres, and Kurdish unrest. He saw good things in the 1980 coup: “There was a left-right civil war with thousands of casualties per year fueled partly by pro-Soviet neighbors. You have to imagine the alternatives to a coup.” On the Armenian question he says, “Not a genocide in the Hitler sense,” and, perhaps more offensively to some, he likes to put the matter in historical perspective. “Well over a million Muslim refugees had been expelled from the Crimea or Balkans or Caucasus,” he writes. “It was the clash of these refugees with Armenians that caused a part of the problem.” Conclusion: not a sudden, arbitrary genocide but a civil war. On the Kurds, he offers himself as exemplar—he’s Scottish but considers British citizenship a benefit, and he says that similarly, the Kurds are better off with the Turks than in a monoethnic enclave.
Is there a particular “Stonian” approach to history? “That’s for you to tell me,” he says. I cite some attributes: a fast-moving prose style with no-nonsense judgments on touchy subjects. Also: sweeping original perceptions that can realign received wisdom in a stroke. In his previous book, World War One: A Short History, the reader learns that the Russian Army spent almost a year surviving on scant supplies, drinking “highly poisonous alcohol,” and soon after, the revolution followed. The Turkey book is full of such revelations. The Ottomans were a successful European empire that began to falter only when they absorbed the Middle East. Plague and climate change were equally responsible for the empire’s collapse. In 1876, Turkey’s first constitutional Parliament quickly disappeared because Turkish statesmen realized that a plebiscite would only empower religious reactionaries. (Arab Spring, anyone?)
Always throughout his histories, Stone throws in sparkling, eccentric details that beguile the reader’s eye. In his latest book I found out that my father’s alma mater, the French-style lycee of Galatasaray, was launched by Sultan Abdülaziz in 1868 and soon bred the kind of educated elite who tried to overthrow the sultanate. Stone alludes to little-known facts, such as that the secret Jews of Salonika, the Dönme—who converted to Islam en masse in the 19th century (along with my grandfather’s ancestors)—later became the ultra-secular elite of the republic. In fact, some even whisper (though Stone doesn’t say so) that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was descended from the Dönme—another reason, perhaps, for the Islamist hostility to his reforms.
On many things, Stone’s opinions differ between the written page and real life. In person, he laments the loss of phrases with “long poetic memories” when Atatürk changed the language and shed many Perso-Arabic words. In the book, he argues that such language would never have served as “a vehicle for the mass literacy that Turkey went on to achieve with Latin letters.” “Oh, I’m not always consistent,” he says, “but I’m always right,” and laughs again in the jovial way of a contented man.
Updated With The Counter Comments by Sukru Server Aya 29 Oct 2011 By Esra Elmas Agos, August 10-15, 2011
1. Actually Hrant Dink did an interview with you in 2002. After 9 years, this will be the first after him, I guess. Let me start with the assassination of Hrant Dink. What do you think about the process in which, at the end, Hrant Dink was killed in 2007?
The murder of Hrant Dink came as a shock to all of us at Zoryan. During his visit to the institute nine years ago, he . . . shared with us his vision to bring the Armenian and Turkish peoples together through dialogue and reconciliation. The conversation is as vivid as if it had taken place yesterday. We were both aware that Turkish history was highly politicized by the events of 1915 issue, but we both also understood that it was critical that the parties should not see each other through the lens of that era.
As to your question about the process which led to the killing of Hrant, I would suggest we review what took place in Turkey during the five years preceding his killing, or following AKP’s coming to power in 2002.
Under the leadership of Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Gul, the AKP implemented numerous reforms, entered into negotiations to bring Turkey into the EU, launched successful economic development programs, and reduced penalties for surrendered Kurds. But, most importantly, they gave the European courts of Human Rights supremacy over Turkish courts. These reforms gave real hope to the intellectuals, scholars, human rights activists, media personalities and civil society that there was real change coming to Turkey, including freedom of speech and thought. It is ironic that just a month before Hrant was killed, Prime Minister Erdogan spoke in New York about good relations between citizens of Turkey who came from different backgrounds.
Unfortunately, the promise of democracy and freedom of speech contrasted with the government’s actions during this same period. Numerous people, including some 75 journalists, intellectuals and writers were indicted under the notorious Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. Hrant and others who were part of the Istanbul Conference in 2005 were called “traitors” by the AKP-appointed Justice Minister, who accused them of “stabbing the nation in the back.” The irony here is that most of the people indicted under Article 301 were acquitted. Hrant felt that he was being singled out, as a Turkish citizen of Armenian heritage, for rougher treatment for the same alleged offense and the appeal court gave him a 6-month suspended sentence. He was particularly shaken when he was beaten by an angry mob when leaving the courthouse.
As a Turkish citizen all Hrant wanted was to see his country move forward dealing with the events of 1915 in order to make it a more inclusive place. After all it was his homeland as an Armenian and as a Turk, albeit with his dual identity. In situations of this nature there are many forces involved, one of which is the government’s actions and statements. These may have incited hatred against Hrant, so that certain individuals felt justified in killing him, in order to prevent him from exposing a larger historical truth that was being covered up. The same government did everything it could to silence anyone who threatened to expose this historical taboo. Well known examples are the trials and the silencing of Elif Shafak, Orhan Pamuk, and many others. In the end, this process led to Hrant’s killing and silencing him once and for all.
2. What does the murder of Hrant mean for the Armenians?
To answer what Hrant meant to the Armenians is a loaded question that needs several hours, if not days, to describe. My view of how Armenians see Hrant’s killing is as a victim of the state’s policy on the Genocide. In order to understand why Armenians think that way, I will ask you to recall Prime Minister Erdogan’s statements in reaction to his assassination.
Hrant’s murder was directly related to his opening up questions in Turkish society about the events of 1915 or the Armenian Genocide, as mentioned earlier. Second, Prime Minister Erdogan’s speech on Hrant’s killing was telling, when he said: “It is extremely thought-provoking that Dink is chosen as a target. When there are new activities regarding the alleged Armenian Genocide in some foreign states….”
Here the Turkish prime minister is linking the death of Hrant directly to the “alleged Armenian Genocide.” That linkage is also made in the mind of every Armenian, in Turkey or elsewhere. The culmination of Hrant’s articulation of what really happened in 1915 and Prime Minister Erdogan’s reference to the “alleged Armenian genocide,” led to Hrant being labelled as the the 1,500,001st victim of the Genocide.
3. Do you follow Hrant Dink’s case? The murderer Samast recently was sentenced to 22 years and 10 months imprisonment. He will become eligible for parole in 2021, after serving 2/3rds of his sentence. What do you think about the judicial process in Turkey?
Of course, we at the Zoryan Institute have followed the case very closely. We study the forces and factors that shape the Armenian reality worldwide. These factors include the diasporan existence, the Genocide, and, naturally, developments in Turkey and Armenia and Turkish-Armenian relations. In addition, we had a close personal relationship with Hrant, with whom we shared a vision of Turkish-Armenian relations.
As to the judicial process, Ogun Samast’s sentence is not the key issue. Rather, it is the mindset that is behind this killing, which is, in my opinion, the same mentality as that of the Young Turks in 1915. The true judicial process should deal with the root causes that were behind Hrant’s murder. If one is to bring justice to Hrant’s murder, then it must deal with the act of suppressing the history of 1915, for which some people seem willing to do anything, including killing people who dare to ask questions. If the root cause is not dealt with one wonders if there will be similar future victims.
4. Concerning the genocide issue, is there any difference between the position/perception of an Armenian who lives in Turkey, in Armenia, and in the Diaspora? Like what?
Whether it be Diasporan Armenians, Armenians in Turkey, or in Armenia, there is no difference in their understanding of the historical truth, and therefore in their collective memory. There is enough historical evidence, documentation and physical evidence to show what happened to the 2 million Armenians in Turkey. Every Armenian at some point faces the questions, where did I come from, how did I get here, what happened to my grandparents, or my great grandparents. The majority of Armenians around the world all confront the same answer: they were deported from their ancestral cultural homeland and most were killed.
No doubt collectively in Armenian minds it is known that the Ottoman Turks annihilated the Armenian presence from their homeland. This is true for Armenians in Turkey, in the Diaspora and in Armenia.
What may be different in their position is how to go about reconciliation with today's Turkish government.
5. Although most of the AGOS readers may already knew Zoryan Institute, let's remind them the story behind it. What is Zoryan Institute and what was the reason of founding it?
The official name is self-explanatory: The Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation. I stated earlier, it deals with the study and analysis of the events that shaped the contemporary Armenian reality within a universal context. There were a few of us involved in the founding of the institute in 1982. The idea at its inception was originally the brainchild of Jirair Libaridian, who left the institute in 1989, to join the government of Armenia. Since then, the institute has evolved and expanded to include universal human rights as part of its mission by establishing a new division called The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies. Another international division was created for Diaspora Studies. For me personally, the issue of identity has been the driving force behind my involvement with the Institute from the beginning. Both my parents were from Anadolu, survivors of the Genocide. It was natural that I grew up in a home with the traditions of Anatolia. This includes the food, customs, music, language, etc. that made me feel close to Turks, Kurds and Armenians who also came from that region. Being of Armenian ethnicity and going to Armenian elementary school, I grew up with Armenian culture and language. Being born in Lebanon and raised there until the age of eighteen, submerged in Lebanese culture as well, gave me an identity that was also Lebanese—but I was not an Arab. When I visited Armenia, I found that their culture and traditions were somewhat strange to me. When I moved to the US to attend university and work, even thought my language became English, I was not an Anglo-American. So what was I? So, I began a quest to understand what exactly my identity was. That included knowing my history, the town my parents came from and especially what my relationship to Turkey is. The founding of the Zoryan Institute was the vehicle for that explanation and understanding.
6. So your personal story is the main motive in forming the Zoryan Institute. What does it mean to be the son of such a family? How do you deal with this conflict?
In 1995, I shared a very personal story publicly at the International Conference on “Problems of Genocide” in Yerevan. I talked about a righteous Turk, Haji Khalil, my grandfather's business partner, who had promised to take care of his family in case of any misfortune. When my grandfather was hung by the Ottoman authorities, and the deportations of the Armenians began, Haji Khalil, this pious Moslem, kept his promise by hiding my mother's family in the upper storey of his house for almost a year. There were seven people to hide, food for seven extra mouths to be purchased, prepared and carried up undetected nightly, and had to suffice until the next night. Haji Khalil's consideration was such that he even arranged for his two wives and the servants to be absent from the house at least once a week, so that my grandmother and her family could bathe.
When two of the children died, he buried them in secret. He took tremendous risks and his situation was dangerous, because his servants understood what was transpiring. Had he been caught sheltering Armenians, he would certainly have shared their fate. Luckily, his household was loyal and discreet, and therefore, I was one of the very few children of my generation and in my neighborhood to grow up with uncles and aunts, all of whom remember Haji Khalil, the righteous man. This is in contrast with my father's story, who was orphaned at the age of eight, his father hanged, his mother raped and killed, and of nine children in his family, only he and two brothers survived. The dichotomy of the nightmarish experience of my father, and the memory of Haji Khalil was another reason to embark on the founding of the institute.
7. What about your children? How do your children feel and think about these issues? Do they have any attachment with the past? Do they support the job that you do in Zoryan?
I forwarded your question to my children to answer for themselves. Here are their answers.
My son Haig, who is 22 years old now, answered as follows. “As children of Armenian descent and more importantly of our father, we have been exposed to the issues surrounding Genocide Studies & Human Rights especially related to our cultural history. As we are two generations away from the events that took place in 1915, we are slightly removed from the issues. However, due to the pride we hold as Armenians, and seeing how our people suffered, we also hope to resolve this issue so that Armenia can move forward. Being strong advocates for human rights, regardless of ethnicity, nationality or culture, we believe that our father’s work at Zoryan has taken part in shaping our outlook on the world….”
Alex, who just turned 18, answered as follows: “Yes, we have an attachment to the past and the Zoryan Institute. The genocide is a huge part of not only Armenian history but my family history, and who knows if I'd be growing up in Canada today if it wasn't for the genocide.”
8. What is your aim with the program of Human Rights and Genocide Studies that runs every year by the participation of people coming from different parts of the world?
The program has a number of objectives. It is designed to help prepare university students to become the next generation of genocide scholars. It takes a comparative and interdisciplinary approach to cases of genocide such as the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, Cambodia and Rwanda, among others. The comparative study of genocide, a gross violation of human rights, can help us identify and understand the conditions under which genocide and other acts of mass violence are likely to take place; it can help illuminate the warning signs of impending violence; and it can suggest ways in which genocide may be prevented. Also, we strive to show through a comparative approach that genocide is a shared human experience and, as such, must be the concern of all individuals and institutions.
Genocide has taken place in many countries, and it is possible that it can take place in any country. We make the effort to bring in students from around the world to become expert in genocide, so that they can return to their home countries empowered with the knowledge to become like the proverbial thousand points of light and work towards its prevention everywhere.
9. Here, it is also possible for the opposite parties of the massacres to meet with each other during the two-week program. How is it possible? Have you ever had any troubles about this?
If with this question you mean to ask whether we have had the descendants of a perpetrator nation and victim nation attend the same class, then indeed, we have. We have had Tutsis and Hutus, Armenians and Turks, Jews and pro-Palestinian individuals, and such. All students come to the class with certain prejudices, but one by one, over the duration of the course, the program dismantles these prejudices and ten to twelve professors help elevate the students' understanding of the facts and complexities of genocide studies. It is through this academic process and their new understanding of humanity that students from all walks of life can begin to speak the same language. That is the success of this course.
The aim of the program is to convert our emotional perspective to an intellectual one, using academic tools, where, through education, your understanding of a situation is elevated to a universal perspective. After this, you can’t help but speak as a representative of all humanity, and not as a representative of one camp or another.
10. Do students hesitate to participate in debates, or do they feel any other pressure on themselves? Like what?
No, I don’t think so. You’ve been there. You’ve seen that the professors encourage the students to participate in discussion. There may be hesitation at first, but as the sessions progress the participants evolve and develop the prospective and the language to discuss sensitive topics in an open, mutually respectful environment, in keeping with the standards of an academic institution.
11. What is the impact of opposite sides on the content of the program?
I’m not sure what you mean by “opposite sides.” When you’re dealing with the truth, based on reliable evidence, there can be only one side.
12. Do you have some other programs or activities at the Zoryan Institute?
There are three branches in the Zoryan Institute. One deals with Armenia, another with Diaspora, and the third with the Armenian Genocide. Part of the latter is a program called “Creating a Common Body of Knowledge.” The objective is to provide authoritative documentation that will be accepted and shared by Turkish and Armenian civil societies and western scholarship as primary sources on the subject of the Armenian Genocide. Incidentally, this program is the brainchild of Taner Akçam.
These documents may be in German, Ottoman Turkish, English, etc., and are intended to form the basis for a common understanding of what happened in history. The more such documents are made available to Armenian and Turkish societies, the more they will be empowered to question the narratives imposed by states. Ultimately, the Common Body of Knowledge can lead to the truth about the events in question and an understanding of each other.
It is worth noting that Zoryan publishes two academic journals. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal is published in partnership with the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and, like Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, is also published in partnership with the University of Toronto Press.
13. Do you know the way you are perceived from outside? I mean what is the perception of Zoryan in Turkey and in Armenia?
In international circles, Zoryan is well regarded as a serious research and educational centre, adhering to the highest academic standards. Unfortunately, in the Turkish media and Turkish-sponsored websites, Zoryan, its work, and that of its associated scholars are sometimes misrepresented as propaganda. I remember Radikal, for example, stating that Zoryan is known as the most powerful propaganda centre of the Armenian Diaspora.
In Armenia, Zoryan is recognized as a very important centre for Genocide and Diaspora Studies. As far back as 1987, Zoryan signed a formal agreement with the Institute for Diasporan Studies in Yerevan to deal with issues of the Armenian Diaspora. Zoryan has partnered with various Armenian organizations and the Academy of Sciences, conducting research and organizing major international conferences.
It is important to realize that Zoryan is not an exclusively Armenian organization. Our board members and the scholars with whom we work are of many nationalities and from many countries. Our Board Chairman is Roger W. Smith of the US. There is Yair Auron in Israel, Wolfgang Gust in Germany, Taner Akçam from Turkey, to name a few.
14. What do you want for the future of Zoryan Institute and this program?
Well, there are many and or endless wants. For example, I want there to be more financial support for this program, so that we could sponsor more students from different countries, including Turkey and Armenia to come to Toronto. Here, they could live together in the university dormitory, study with other students from around the world, have fun together in social activities, and be empowered by the education they received from ten to twelve renowned professors, and learn how to deal with the data and the evidence. In fact, it would be ideal to set up such a program in Turkey and Armenia, themselves.
15. Turkish government does not recognize the Armenian Genocide. On the other hand, for the last two years, there are some people in Turkey who come together on April 24 in order to memorialize the pain of Armenians. Again three years ago some of the Turks apologized for Armenian Massacres. What do you think about these events?
It is immensely heart-warming to see that some people in Turkish civil society have accepted the truth of 1915 and are sympathetic to the painful experience of the Armenians. The apology campaign is very much appreciated, and I hope that someday, the whole of Turkish society may be sensitized to come together on April 24 to commemorate the pain of the Armenians.
However, the official reconciliation will come only when the Turkish Government itself comes to terms with the historical truth of 1915 and liberates its citizens from this burden. I remember that Prof. Fatma Müge Göçek once said, “I, as an ethnically Turkish citizen, am not guilty, but am responsible for what happened to the Armenians in 1915. This is a crucial separation that has to be done for transformation.”
You know, history, if not approached truthfully, will always be a stumbling block on the road to peace between our two peoples. Peace can only be achieved if people can talk openly about this subject, and through the Common Body of Knowledge and education, arrive at a mutual understanding of the truth. Without truth, it is doubtful that reconciliation can be achieved.
16. What does apology mean for the Armenians? Is the official recognition by the states indispensably crucial concerning the solution of the problem between Armenians and Turks?
Studies on the reconciliation process in such countries as Rwanda and South Africa have shown that In order for an apology to be meaningful, it has to be part of a series of steps, in order to lead to reconciliation. These steps are
1) acknowledgement of guilt and taking responsibility, 2) a genuine expression of remorse, 3) asking for forgiveness, and finally, 4) making amends commensurate with the crime and acceptable to the victim group, so that the healing process can start.
Turkish and Armenian people can definitely learn and implement this process.
To your question about recognition by the states being indispensable, if you mean Turkey, the answer is yes. As you will remember from the course, genocide is a political act perpetrated by a state. The conductor of the Armenian Genocide was the Ottoman State, usurped by the Ittihad ve Terakki party, as was the case of the Nazis taking over Germany. The crime committed was with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, in this case its Armenian citizens. The Turkish State is the inheritor of the Ottoman State, and therefore is responsible for that crime, even though modern Turkey did not commit it.
You may also recall learning about the eight stages of genocide described by Dr. Gregory H. Stanton of Genocide Watch. These are
Turkey’s denial today of what the Ottoman government did to its Armenian citizens in 1915 is itself a continuation of the act and therefore the eighth stage of genocide.
17. Apart from the state reaction, ordinary people both in Turkey and Armenia still have a nationalistic point of view and “otherize” each other. What are the reasons of it? Is it the education system or the way of official history-telling in both of the countries?
First of all, I believe that education is very important, for both countries to have a new perspective about each other. But there is a complete absence of confidence building measures. For some years, Armenia has called for diplomatic relations with Turkey with no preconditions. However, Turkey has not taken advantage of this opportunity, and is keeping the border between the two countries closed, even though the Armenian side is open. Turkey should consider its relationship with Armenia on its own merits and not tie it to its relations with Azerbaijan. There are good precedents for this policy in Egypt’s relations with Israel, at a time the latter was at war with Syria. Also there have been relations between Turkey and Greece, in spite of the complications over the situation in Cyprus. Interaction between the two peoples on social and economic levels can only develop goodwill and erase the negative stereotyping of each other. Finally, removing all restrictions about freedom of expression in Turkey and Armenia would definitely help eliminate the “otherizing” of each other.
As the leaders of the Ottoman Turkish government in 1915 were rounding up the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire for mass deportation and slaughter, a number of Turks risked their own lives to help Armenians escape certain death. There is no way to know today how many such individual acts of courage and humanity occurred in those tragic times. Our sources of information are largely anecdotal: family histories transmitted orally, autobiographies and personal memoirs, and the oral testimonies of survivors.
These acts of heroism and kindness stand in stark contrast to the cruelest savagery displayed by the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. Their importance is great, for several reasons. First, they are additional evidence of the Armenian Genocide. Secondly, they illustrate that, while there was indeed a genocide, not all Turks supported it. Thirdly, these stories serve to reassure us of the human potential for courage and virtue.(1) While these stories do serve as evidence of goodness, they can not and should not be used to counterbalance the record of evil in some quantitative manner, as there are relatively few documented examples. The quality of goodness they evidence, however, may give some comfort to us all.(2)
What did these people do? As Armenians were being rounded up, forced to sell all their possessions, save what they could carry, for a tiny fraction of their worth, and led off to what was certain death, some individual Turks hid them in their homes, while others helped them escape to safety. It must be noted that these Turks did so in the full knowledge that to be caught helping an Armenian meant summary execution. It was common practice for the soldiers to take the rescuer to his front doorstep or a public square and shoot him for all to see. In such highly charged circumstances, one can only imagine today the difficulty of helping Armenians escape to a safer location, or keeping secret the fact that a group of Armenians was hidden in one’s home. Providing food for them, giving them privacy for bathing and other necessities of life, were all fraught with mortal danger.
Why did they do it? One can only speculate. We know in some cases it was because of long-standing personal friendships. Yet, there are many cases where Turks helped Armenians who were strangers. It seems that basic human decency was a key element, although there are cases where some benefit to the rescuer was involved (e.g., bribes, labour, sexual exploitation, marriage to the rescuer’s children), as well as forced conversion to Islam.(3)
It is rare for Armenians as a group to acknowledge that there were Turks who helped them during the Genocide, although individual Armenians are able to do so. The events of 1915-1923 were so catastrophic and so debilitating for Armenians, both physically and psychologically, that perhaps it is only after the span of some 86 years that one can begin to look at this issue with any degree of objectivity.
Some Turks feel that the Armenians blame them unfairly. They feel it exonerates them that, whatever may have happened, it happened in the Ottoman Empire, which was then a different country. Some vehemently deny that the Genocide of the Armenians ever happened, or lay the blame for it on the victims, or justify it because it was wartime, or claim that Turks suffered, too. The facts do not bear out these rationalizations,(4) and yet they are repeated over and over, as if the repetition will make them somehow more credible. Such unconvincing efforts at face-saving do not reflect well on the honor of the Turkish people. If Turks truly want to defend their national honor and find their place among the democracies of the modern world, they must make a genuine effort to face the truth about one of the darkest pages in their history.(5) While that truth may be very unpleasant for Turks to face, learning that there are stories of righteous Turks, and that Armenians also know these stories, handed down from their grandparents and parents, may make it a little easier.
The Republic of Armenia and Turkey are contiguous neighbors, yet they do not enjoy official diplomatic relations or the economic benefits concomitant with such relations. Armenians are injured, on many levels, that Turkey denies the Genocide. For their part, Turks are injured that they are blamed for their lack of adherence to truthfulness and democratic principles. Each country and each people has something to gain from the normalization of relations with the other, yet the dialogue between them has yet to begin. It is hoped that this modest collection of stories of Turks who saved Armenians may make it a little easier for that dialogue to begin.
From a broader perspective, scholars have questioned how people can commit genocide, and how other people can stand by and do nothing in the face of such gross violence and injustice.(6) They remind us that we, as individuals, have a responsibility to establish in modern society a universal atmosphere which engenders and promotes the sense of caring for others.(7) It is also hoped that, by reading these examples of how individual Turks behaved morally and altruistically towards their Armenian fellow citizens, under the most difficult circumstances, we all may learn how people can feel caring and sympathy for others.
Notes
(1) Samuel P. Oliner and Pearl M. Oliner, “Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe.” In Israel W. Charny, ed., Encyclopedia of Genocide, Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1999, p. 496.
(2) Schulweis, Harold M., in Mordecai Paldiel, The Path of the Righteous: Gentile Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, 1993, p. xii, xiii.
(3) Richard G. Hovannisian, “The Question of Altruism During the Armenian Genocide of 1915.” In Pearl M Oliner, et al., ed., Embracing the Other: Philosophical, Psychological, and Historical Perspectives on Altruism. New York and London: New York University Press, 1992, p. 288ff. See also ibid., “Intervention and Shades of Altruism During the Armenian Genocide.” In Richard G. Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, Ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992, pp. 177ff.
(4) See, for example, Vahakn N. Dadrian, The Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification. Cambridge, MA and Toronto: Zoryan Institute, 1999. See also the Bibliography on Denial of the Armenian Genocide elsewhere in this web site.
(5) See on this, for example, Taner Akçam, “The Genocide of the Armenians and the Silence of the Turks.” In Levon Chorbajian and George Shirinian, eds., Studies in Comparative Genocide. London: Macmillan, 1999, pp. 125-146.
(6) See, for example, Israel W. Charny, How Can We Commit the Unthinkable? Boulder: Westview Press, 1982; Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996, pp. 375ff.; Eva Fogelman, Conscience and Courage: Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust. New York: Anchor Books, 1994, pp. xiv-xx; Ervin Staub, The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
(7) Samuel P. Oliner and Pearl M. Oliner, op. cit., p. 499; Staub, Ervin, “Preventing Genocide: Activating Bystanders, Helping Victims Heal, Helping Groups Overcome Hostility.” In Levon Chorbajian and George Shirinian, eds., Studies in Comparative Genocide. London: Macmillan, 1999, pp. 258-259.
=========================================
The Story of Haji Khalil
The following story was part of an address given by Kourken M. Sarkissian during the conference titled, "Problems of Genocide," co-sponsored by the National Commission on the 80th Anniversary Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide, Republic of Armenia, and the Zoryan Institute, held in Yerevan, April 21-23, 1995.
Your Excellency, President Levon Ter-Petrossian,
Your Holiness Karekin Sarkissian, Catholicos of All Armenians,
Eminent Scholars and Fellow Armenians.
It is a great honor for me to address you from this podium. A great honor for me as a person, as a representative of the Zoryan Institute, and as a member of the Armenian nation in diaspora.
Speaking as an individual, let me say that I am the son of genocide survivors. My father is now 90, my mother 82. His father was hanged, his mother raped and killed, and of the nine children in the family, only he and his five year old brother survived.
The story of my mother's family was different, atypical, but not to be neglected for that reason. My maternal grandfather was hanged in front of his family, which included his pregnant wife, my grandmother, and four children between the ages of two and eight.
A Turkish businessman, Haji Khalil, had been my grandfather's partner, and had promised to care for his family in case of misfortune. When a disaster greater than anything either of them could have imagined struck, he kept his promise by hiding our family in the upper storey of his house for a year. The logistics involved were extremely burdensome: including my grandmother's niece, there were seven people in hiding. Food for seven extra mouths had to be purchased, prepared and carried up undetected once a night and had to suffice until the next night. Khalil's consideration was such that he even arranged for his two wives and the servants to be absent from the house once a week so that my grandmother and her family could bathe.
When two of the children died, he buried them in secret. He took tremendous risks and his situation was precarious, because his servants knew what he was doing. Had he been caught sheltering Armenians, he would almost certainly have shared their fate. Luckily, his household was loyal and discreet, and so I was one of the few children of my generation and neighborhood to grow up with uncles and aunts, all of whom remember the Turk Haji Khalil -may God bless his soul.
I grew up in the predominantly Armenian districts of Aleppo and Beirut, attended Armenian schools and joined Armenian organizations like the Zavarian movement. The dream of a free, independent Armenia and of the nightmarish genocide perpetrated by the Turks became the obsessions of my life. Both from Armenian organizations and from other survivors I learned that Turks had been inhuman monsters, and indeed many had behaved as such. Yet the memory of Haji Khalil was also part of my consciousness, and so I grew up with a dichotomy, knowing the story of a humane Turkish man, his family and household.
This internalized duality taught me that truth and justice cannot be had easily; they must be searched for. The conflict and questions I felt remained with me as I migrated to the USA, studied engineering and became a businessman. The desire to pursue the truth and to share it with others led me to join hands with a childhood friend and to establish the Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation. Its objective was, and remains, the study of modern Armenian life. This has come to mean that our work is devoted to three topics. First, the Genocide, which was the plan to annihilate an ancient people. Second, the Diaspora, a tragic consequence of the first. And third, the homeland itself, where the dream of a free and independent Armenia has begun to become a reality.
. . .
Honored guests and fellow Armenians, speaking as a member of the diaspora, I want to say that all of us want the Armenian nation to build a state with flourishing political, spiritual, military, economic and intellectual institutions. We consider the diaspora to be part of the nation if not of the state, and feel that it must contribute to the building of the Republic's strength through such organizations as the united Church, the Armenian Business Forum, the All Armenia Fund and many other organizations dedicated to Armenia. We believe that the Armenian state is now the focus of the hopes of a large diaspora and that it is also bound to be, along with the Church, a central element in the formation of an Armenian identity for new generations of diasporans. The state has the right to demand the support of all Armenian people everywhere; and in return it is expected that the state remain sensitive to the feelings and thoughts of four million diasporans on issues such as, for example, justice to the victims of the Genocide, as stipulated in Article 11 of the Declaration of Independence.
I want to extend my hand to the people of Turkey, to ask them to remember that though at one time their state was led by mass murderers, they also had their Haji Khalils, and that it would honor the memory of the latter to acknowledge the overwhelming truth of the Genocide, to express regrets, so that the healing process may begin between our two peoples. Because without this healing "...mass extermination as a tool of political dominance may become more common in the future. If Armenians and other victims of genocide do not do everything in their power to pursue the battle against genocide, they will have failed in their responsibility toward future generations." And also, I might add, to those endangered even as we speak, be they Rwandans, or Kurds, or Bosnians.
With this conference, the government of Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, as represented by the Zoryan Institute and the many scholars here today, have taken a step to fulfil their share of responsibility. I call upon all other scholars, officials, reporters and especially on the Turkish people to begin to do their share, because our collective, global future can only be founded on truth and justice.
Helen's Story As recounted in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, on April 30, 2000
[At Helen's request, all identifiable names have been removed.]
This anecdote is set in Teheran, Iran, in the 1940s, after the end of World War II. A young Armenian girl, Helen, had one particular friend, among all of her school friends, with whom she shared a special affection. One day, this friend invited Helen to her home for a birthday party. When Helen cheerfully mentioned this news to her mother, the latter was not pleased.
Helen's mother advised her that her friend was Turkish, and that Turks had murdered Helen's grandfather, her father's father. They had shot him in the back while he was out riding on horseback, and while holding his sister's hand. The horse returned home with him slumped over in the saddle. Therefore, she did not think it would be respectful of her grandfather's memory to be such good friends with this Turkish girl. Helen's mother told her that she could have her friends over to the house, but that she should not go to her friend's house.
Helen made an excuse to miss the party, but her friend wanted her there so much, she postponed it. This happened again, and again. After her friend offered to postpone the birthday party for the third time, Helen felt compelled to explain to her friend the real reason she kept cancelling.
The next day, the friend's mother knocked on the door of Helen's house. Helen's mother was very surprised to see her, and very uncomfortable, but when the woman asked to come in, she could hardly refuse.
The woman's calm demeanour was obviously hiding a lot of pent up emotion. She began to speak directly to the point. "Yes, I am Turkish," she said, "but my father was also killed by Turks. During those dark days in Turkey, when the life of every Armenian was in danger, my father smuggled Armenians to freedom eleven times. The twelfth time, he was caught by the authorities and executed. They brought him to the centre of the city and shot him. So how can you not allow your daughter to come to my house?"
As they talked, they cried together, this Turkish mother and this Armenian mother. And after that, Helen was free to visit her Turkish friend's house any time she wanted to.
Helen grew up in Iran, got married, and eventually moved to Canada, where she now lives. But she has never forgotten this story and always keeps it close to her heart. .
29 October 2011 Update Sarkozy in the Caucasus By Kamer Kasim
By Ömer Engin LÜTEM It has been a surprise for the Armenians as much as for the Turks when French President Nicolas Sarkozy, during his visit to Armenia on 6-7 October, called on Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide allegations and indicated that if not, France would adopt the draft resolution on punishment of genocide denial. Thus, despite the fact that France had always been a supporter of the Armenian theses all along, no French statesman had gone this far and no one had particularly called on Turkey and assigned it a certain date to accept the Armenian genocide claims. . . .
In order to be able to explain this rather strange situation, we must take a look at the past. As is known, after several hesitations, France recognized the Armenian genocide allegations by adopting a law in 2001, which is composed of only one sentence, an event which had caused serious tensions between the two countries. Shortly after the adoption of this law, the Armenian circles in France had argued that the law was not sufficient enough and by expressing that a similar law existed for those denying the Holocaust, had requested the adoption of another law which would punish those denying that such genocide took place. On 12 October 2006, the French National Assembly approved a draft law which made the denial of the Armenian genocide allegations punishable up to five years and by a 45.000 euro fine. In order for this draft to become a law, it also had to be approved by the Senate. However, despite maintaining this draft on its agenda, the Senate had not discussed it in the past four and a half years. This is the result of senators, who are elected for six years, being less influenced by daily politics. The senators, consisting mostly of Right and Centrist parties, have given more importance to relations with Turkey compared to the minority of senators consisting of the Socialist and other parties with left wing tendencies. Moreover, most of the senators, without making a leftist-rightist distinction, have opposed historical events being formally interpreted through laws. In fact, laws defined as “Memory Laws” which judge historical events like colonialism and slave trade had started being adopted in France in the recent years. A significant part of the French historians had opposed these laws based on the facts that they prevent or harm impartial historical research and this view had been shared by most of the public opinion.
The Armenians had shown great efforts for this draft law to be brought before the Senate’s agenda and in the meantime, received promises from Nicolas Sarkozy as Presidential candidate that if he is elected, he will support the draft being discussed in the Senate. However, after being elected, Sarkozy has changed his stance and started acting in opposition to these “Memory Laws”.
The Socialist Party senators, who have supported the Armenian genocide allegations without any reservations ever since, have been successful this year in May in bringing the draft law which punishes those denying the Armenian genocide allegations (from now on, we will shortly call this the “denial draft”) to the agenda. The Draft had first been addressed in the Senate’s Law Committee and the Committee had unanimously decided that the draft was contradictory to the legality of crime and penalty principle of the Constitution and the principles of freedom of speech and ideas. When the report on this issue in the Law Committee was approved by the Senate’s General Council, the draft was rejected. During the voting, the Rightist and Centrist parties had voted in favor of the Committee’s report, while the Socialists and other Leftist parties had voted against it. Meanwhile, it has been observed that more than half of the Socialists did not participate in the voting procedure.
Rejection of the Denial Law has been perceived as a great defeat for the French Armenians while expressions to protest Sarkozy during the Presidential Elections visibly increased.
Meanwhile, the Leftist parties had gained the majority in the Senate during the by-elections that took place on September 25th, 2011, even though with a slight 3-vote difference. On the other hand, the possibility of the adoption of the draft has increased when the former First Secretary of the Socialist Party François Hollande, who aspires to become the candidate for the upcoming Presidential elections in April, stated that he will call on the newly formed Leftist majority in the Senate to discuss the “denial draft”. Hence, it can be inferred that these developments forced Sarkozy -who was not able to receive good results from public opinion polls concerning his presidency- to review a change in his policy regarding the issue of the Armenian Question.
The first indication of this perceivable change was the extraordinary attention and warm welcome given to Armenian President Serge Sarkisian during his visit to France on 28-20 September 2011. This way, the disappointment among French Armenians towards Sarkozy and the ruling parties for the “denial draft” being rejected in the Senate has tried to be resolved to a certain extent.
On the other hand, Sarkozy’s change of policy became evident almost a week later during his official visit to Armenia.
Approximately a week after Sarkisian’s visit to France, President Sarkozy had conducted an official visit to Armenia on 6-7 October 2001. What’s interesting is that in an unusual way, a very short time has elapsed since the first visit. This shows that Sarkozy is in a rush or in other words, he wants to implement his Armenian policy as soon as possible.
In his statements during his visit, Sarkozy addressed many issues with the friendship of France and Armenia being at the forefront. We will only dwell upon the Armenian question and his statements regarding his expectations from Turkey. We could summarize these as follows: First of all, Sarkozy believes that the Armenians have been subjected to genocide. He has described the denial of genocide and especially the collective denial (refers to Turkey here) as fatal. Furthermore, Sarkozy has emphasized the recognition of the Armenian genocide claims by Turkey. He has said that each country must revisit its history, face the crimes it has committed and accept the dark pages of its history and that this will not belittle it but on the opposite, will make it more honorable and display its significance. Moreover, he has said that this will be a great step towards the future and a gesture for peace and that without recognizing the pains suffered, no reconciliation could take place and Turkey, which is a great country, must also do this just as France and Germany have done. The third and most important point is that if Turkey continues to openly or implicitly deny the Armenian genocide allegations, France could consider amending the draft law which punishes denial (in other words, that the “denial draft” could be adopted in the Senate) and that on the opposite, if Turkey makes a gesture to recognize the genocide allegations, then no change will be made. However, he has gone further and said that France will display its stance (its decision) on this issue, based on what the Turkish statesmen will say, in a very brief time and that this period must be within his term of office.
In short, the French President has called on Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide allegations and has expressed that if not, then the “denial draft” will become a law and has given until April, when his term of office comes to an end, for Turkey to recognize the genocide allegations.
Firstly we must note that until now, no president of any foreign country had urged Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide allegations this openly and no one had especially conveyed a certain date for Turkey. From this aspect, Sarkozy’s behavior is at least not appropriate to the relations which must exist between two allies. However, it could be seen that the French President has no such concern and his primary aim is to influence his own country and the Armenian public opinion. In fact, articles have been published in both countries’ press regarding Sarkozy urging Turkey to recognize the genocide allegations and for mentioning a certain period.
As expected, Turkey’s reactions towards the French President’s statements have been harsh. In a declaration issued by the Foreign Ministry, it has been indicated that these statements have been observed with astonishment and deep regret, that the controversies between Turkey and Armenia have tried to be exploited for French domestic politics, and that such an inconsistent and imprudent handling of this serious matter that has human and moral dimensions is unfortunate. It has also been expressed that Turkey will continue its constructive approach on how to improve its relations with Armenia, overcome the controversy over the events of 1915 and reach a just memory and that what is expected from France is to make a positive contribution to this process and to adopt a responsible approach and discourse that would show care to avoid both damaging the multi-dimensional relationship between Turkey and France and offending the Turkish community in France. Meanwhile, we should indicate that while highly praising the Armenians during his statements, Sarkozy had no concern for taking into consideration the Turkish community and the Turks in France.
On the other hand, Foreign Minister Davutoğlu said that these kinds of statements are political opportunism; that this type of opportunism arises whenever there are elections in Europe and that it could have a negative impact on the process between Turkey and Armenia continuing despite some disruptions. He has gone further on to say that there is no problem for Turkey to confront its history, but that mentalities who cannot confront their own histories and who have not intermingled with the societies they have ruled due to colonialism and who have seen them as a lower class, should confront their own histories and that those countries with a colonial past do not have the right to give a lesson to Turkey to confront its history and those suggesting Turkey to do so must first look at the mirror themselves.
European Union Minister and Chief Negotiator Egemen Bağış has expressed that it would be more meaningful if Sarkozy worked on how his country could come out of the economic turbulence instead of assuming the role of historians and developed projects on the future of the EU and has described this situation as the exploitation of the nearing elections.
On the other hand, in a speech delivered at his Party’s Parliamentary Group Meeting, Prime Minister Erdoğan has said that the French President has given advices to Turkey, but that Sarkozy should listen to his own advice since he speaks differently in each country. Also, after indicating that such a political leadership cannot be pursued and that before everything else, politics requires honesty, he has said that Turkey is not a piece of cake.
MHP Leader Devlet Bahçeli has also criticized Sarkozy, expressing that if he wants to see an example of genocide, he should look back at the history of his own country and that he will clearly see the atrocities committed in Algeria and will notice explicit or implicit massacres in North Africa.
These reactions from Turkey have also been published within the French and Armenian press and has clearly displayed that Turkey has no intention to consider Sarkozy’s call for the recognition of the genocide allegations.
In yesterday’s article, we have informed the reader that during his visit to Armenia, French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide allegations and that if this recognition was not made within the timeframe until April, the draft law foreseeing the punishment of those denying the genocide allegations and being rejected by the French Senate would be addressed again. We had also expressed in our article that the Turkish statesmen raised criticisms to Sarkozy by harsh statements.
The French President surely knows that there is no possibility for Turkey to recognize the genocide allegations. Yet, despite this fact, what is the reason for being so persistent and even providing a certain timeframe almost in the form of an ultimatum for this recognition?
There is no doubt that Nicolas Sarkozy acts purely out of concern for domestic politics. Presidential elections will be held next April, while Parliamentary elections will be held in June in France. Sarkozy wants to be re-elected as President for the second time, but according to public opinion polls, has not yet gathered the necessary votes for reelection. For this reason, he is trying to increase his support by taking advantage of every opportunity. One of the other problems for Sarkozy is the Armenian demands. The fact that the Socialists won the majority in the Senate following the rejection of the “Denial Law” in the Senate in May has weakened Sarkozy’s position. Now he is attempting to change this condition and to escape the difficult situation he is in due to the “Denial Law”. It could be understood that by calling on Turkey in Yerevan to recognize the genocide allegations within a certain period, he calculated gaining the Armenian hand from the Socialists. While the votes of the Socialists was not enough for the “Denial Law” to be adopted, the possibility for the adoption of this draft became higher as some of the Senators from the ruling UMP Party assumed a more favorable stance towards this law; in other words, a situation has been created where Sarkozy and his Party could accomplish what the Socialists have failed in doing.
While cornering the Socialists, Sarkozy has created tensions in his country’s relations with Turkey. However, it could be understood that Sarkozy does not regard this situation as important and acts by calculating that statements such as Turkey cannot become an EU member and must recognize the Armenian genocide allegations, have been acknowledged by a great part of French public opinion and could turn into votes.
On the other hand, it could be seen that the French have tried to take some measures to prevent a serious damage in relations with Turkey. It would be correct to consider the visit of French Minister of Interior Clause Gueant to Turkey at a time when Sarkozy was in Yerevan, and signing of an agreement on war against terrorism and simultaneously arrests of some PKK members in France within this framework. Moreover, it is also possible for other gestures to be made, following the presidential and parliamentary elections, which could please Turkey. Regarding this issue, one time the “Süleyman the Magnificent” exhibition being opened in Paris and “Turkey’s Year” being proclaimed recently in France which did not draw much attention are still fresh in our memories. However, it is not possible to eliminate the damage for Turkey caused by the adoption of the “Denial Law” through these kinds of activities which could be described as palliative.
Regarding what this damage could be, it is already possible to say that the adoption of a law in France which punishes those denying the Armenian genocide allegations could constitute an example for other countries, the belief will spread that since Turkey has not been able to prevent the adoption of this law in France, then it will also fail in preventing it in other countries, and that this will especially be influential in the US, while on the other hand, that other EU countries trying to stay distant from the Armenian question due to good relations with Turkey could also attempt to follow this path. Furthermore, it should also be considered that with 2015 drawing near, this law, if adopted, will constitute a significant step in favor of the Armenian allegations.
29 October 2011 Update Sarkozy in the Caucasus By Kamer Kasim USAK Center for EU Studies
21 October 2011
During his recent visit to Armenia, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France made statements which sparked reaction in both Turkey and Azerbaijan. This was not just because they reflected a general tendency by France to accept Armenians’ historical claims against Turkey but also because they contained messages regarding Turkey. It is well-known that the Armenian diaspora has an established place in the French political system. During election campaigns French politicians endorse Armenia and Armenian claims of genocide in order to pick up Armenian votes. President Sarkozy’s remarks have to be viewed within the context of the presidential elections due in France in 2012. In addition it is striking that the French president’s visit to the countries of the southern Caucasus. Because of its petrol and natural gas resources, as well as its population size and income levels, Azerbaijan is usually considered to be the most important country of the southern Caucasus, but despite France’s energy interests in this country, Sarkozy gave priority to Armenian. Azerbaijan will no doubt closely review this fact.
France is also the co-chairman of the Minsk Group, set up by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to resolve the Nagorno Karabagh dispute. The Minsk Group has not only failed to find a solution and France in particular has not maintained an impartial stand. In March 2008 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution concerning occupied Azerbaijani territory. Both the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group voted against the resolution which stressed the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and called on Armenian forces to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territory that they are occupying. This shook Azerbaijani confidence in the Minsk Group. Inside the EU there was discussion about the possible removal of France from the joint chairmanship of the Minsk Group and the EU being represented there instead. France vehemently opposes this proposal.
France is trying to play a role in the Middle East and the Caucasus out of proportion to its strengths and its actions there suggest that it places its French identity about its EU identity. Turkey possesses more soft power than France does in the Middle East and Caucasus and its influence there is steadily growing. The transformation which we call the ‘Arab Spring’ is causing the emergence of a style of popularly-based government and in the future this factor will operate even more in favour of Turkey. This situation makes France uneasy. Sarkozy opposes Turkey’s accession to the EU and he regards the Armenian genocide claims as an instrument to deploy against the Turkish candidacy. The French head of state jumbles historical facts and cannot confront his own history, so naturally there is nothing whatsoever that he can say to Turkey.
Looking specifically at Sarkozy’s visit to the southern Caucasus, it was the messages relating to his own domestic politics delivered during the Armenian leg of the journey which attracted attention. During his visit to Azerbaijan, the essential stress was on cooperation between the two countries in the field of energy. Another noteworthy point was that Sarkozy’s called for talks on the Karabagh Problem to be reviewed within the framework of the Minsk Group and that he sounded excessively optimistic on the subject. During his visit to Armenian, Sarkozy remarked that the existing status of Nagorno Karabagh was not sustainable indefinitely and this was favourably received in Azerbaijan. But Sarkozy does not hold that the occupation of Azerbaijani territory there should end and that UN Resolutions on the issue should be enforced. The President’s visit to Georgia was taken up with discussions of events during the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008 and subsequently. As France was president of the EU at the time of the crisis, Sarkozy met President Medvedev then and a six point Declaration of Principles was agreed. This declaration made the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia a matter for international discussion but Russia has nonetheless recognized the independence of these two areas. Sarkozy stated that he had been able to obtain the maximum result by obtaining the withdrawal of Russian forces from all Georgian territory outside Abkhazia and South Ossetia and these remarks were criticised by some observers in Georgia. Alexander Rondeli, President of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, says that the situation being described as a ‘maximum result’ was not really a gain if it simply secured the withdrawal of Russian forces from territory occupied in August 2008 and not that occupied earlier.
In neither of its roles – whether in its efforts to find a solution for Nagorno Karabagh as joint chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group or in the quest for a settlement in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in August 2008 and later – France has not been an effective player. What is more, these were issues where the EU could play an effective role by acting in unison, but by suppressing the EU role and giving priority to its own issues, France has impaired the influence of the EU. www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3535/sarkozy-in-the-caucasus.html
State visit to Armenia, locate the President's speech on the Place of France in Yerevan
SPEECH BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC On the Place de France, Yerevan (Armenia) - October 7, 2011
President of the Republic, President of the National Assembly, Ladies and gentlemen, Prime Minister Distinguished members of the government, Dear Armenian friends, Dear compatriots, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me tell you the joy and emotion that are mine to be today in Armenia, just days after celebrating the 20th anniversary of your independence from France on this site that says so the ties between our two countries.
Rodin's statue dedicated to the painter Jules Bastien-Lepage unveiled today is complete to give this place the face of the friendship between France and Armenia.
Historically, my dear friends, Armenia is in the heart of the French, the two countries, Armenia and France are similar.
Armenia, like France, has a rich history of two millennia, and Armenia as France is attached to its culture. It claims an identity that was forged in the trials of history and it is in adversity that the French and Armenians are best revealed, and they have discovered a strength in them that they even suspect no.
The links between France and Armenia are rooted in the long term.
Christianity, the Crusades are part of our shared history.
The Last King of Armenia is situated alongside the kings of France in the basilica of Saint-Denis.
The Armenian College, inaugurated by Lamartine, is still at Sèvres, a place of reference for the teaching of Armenian in Europe. In the nineteenth century, the Armenian elite was formed in Paris.
But it is in the terrible events of the past century has done to establish the unbreakable friendship between Armenia and France.
After the first pest control company in modern history, tens of thousands of Armenians have sought and found refuge in France. They found in France a second home, never forgetting Armenia.
France acknowledged the death sentence decreed against an entire people while calling it by name, the only possible name, genocide, genocide.
Here in Yerevan, I mean that Turkey should look at his history in the face.
Only the larger countries that are able to look across their history, and reconciliation can not be done at this price.
My dear friends, France is proud of all the son and daughters of Armenia, who gave him the best of themselves, and who enriched.
France has not forgotten what it owes to men like Missak Manouchian, hero of the resistance against the Nazis, is an Armenian who has helped us regain our honor and our freedom. *
Dear friends,
The legacy of centuries has made France and Armenia, forever, nations sisters. Now we have to project into the future, we must face together the challenges of the future.
With the end of communism, with the end of the Soviet Union, Armenia had regained control of his destiny.
On September 21, 1991 opened a new chapter in your story.
First, unfortunately, these were war years.
Punctuated the years of trial and suffering.
Armenia has overcome thanks to the virtues of his people, courage, hard work, a tremendous will to live, which is characteristic of the Armenians.
You can be proud of the progress since independence!
The alternation in power, building a peaceful democracy, the admission in the Council of Europe, a rapprochement with the European Union, all this is so successful that the people and the Armenian government can be proud.
Armenia has the right to live permanently at war, albeit undeclared.
Armenia has the right to live permanently enclosed, as this prevents isolation imposed its development and future of his youth.
It's time to find the path to lasting peace.
The time has come to realize the hope aroused by, Mr. President, worldwide signing of protocols between Armenia and Turkey.
It's time to take the risk of peace, because the greatest risk for Armenia is that of inaction.
France will be by your side, and redouble its efforts to help find a just, lasting, peaceful.
No country, better than France does not understand what it means for Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh.
No country, more than France, does not measure the weight of Turkey in the Armenian collective memory.
But no country knows more than France, my dear friends, it is so great that injury can be cured, it is so deep ditch between two people that can not be filled. It is the way that France has taken to Germany after 1945, when the memory of the occupation and the atrocities of the war was still so painful. It's on the ruins of the deadliest conflict in history has been wild friendship between two peoples, the German people and the French nation. A friendship that is now more than ever the backbone of Europe.
It took the vision of exceptional men, General de Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer, to be sealed the reconciliation between France and Germany.
Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Turks, it's that way for you to take your turn. There is no other. This is the way of peace. I know that the Armenian people have the will, and that the President has the stuff. This same message of peace that I will bear earlier in Baku and I will address the Turkish leaders.
Armenia and France will. It will help Armenia develop its economy.
France and its companies will be at your side.
Our two economies have started to bind to each other.
Our two peoples enjoy working together because they respect themselves, because they share the treasures of culture and civilization, because they understand.
I think of the French University in Armenia, from which issue each year over 200 young Armenian economists and lawyers.
I think the 250 Armenian schools that teach French to bilingual schools nursery, primary and professional.
I think of the hundreds of Armenian students studying in French universities and I wish even more for the future.
The time has come to take the next step, with the creation of a real French school here in Armenia, Yerevan, that the K-terminal, train Armenian speaking elites of tomorrow. It is the decision we made.
The time has come, Mr. President, for Armenia to become a full member of the great francophone family.
Armenia loves the French, like the French culture, never forgetting their own language and own culture.
Even as I speak to you, French and Armenian archaeologists working hand in hand to dig up the glorious past of Armenia belongs to the heritage of humanity.
There are between our two countries shared a thirst for culture that is almost unrivaled in the world.
Robert Gediguian, Serge Avedekian, Alain Terzian, Simon Abkarian, Vahan Martirosian, André Manoukian, Michel Legrand, Hélène Segara, and Charles Aznavour, they are great and great French Armenians, the whole genius of our mix that is embodied in these figures.
Few people in the world have experienced throughout their history as many events as the Armenian people.
Even fewer are those who, like the Armenian people, had to fight for their very survival against forces that wanted to annihilate you.
If the Armenian nation is celebrating the 20th anniversary of its independence, it's herself that she must, because the people victims of genocide know deep within themselves that is first in relying on their own strength they will save their children and give them a future.
France is proud to have hosted children persecuted in Armenia.
These children of Armenia became the children of France.
Much more than a gift, the statue of Rodin is, first, the expression of what France has to Armenia, his girlfriend and her sister, who has given so much by the heart and mind .
Long live Armenia and vive la France!
http://www.elysee.fr/president/les-actualites/discours/2011/visite-d-etat-en-armenie-retrouvez-le.12169.htmlGoogle Translated Please feel free to email us a better translation Visite d'Etat en Arménie : retrouvez le discours du Président sur la Place de France à Erevan
DISCOURS DE M. LE PRÉSIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE
Sur la Place de France
Erevan (Arménie) --Vendredi 7 octobre 2011
Monsieur le Président de la République, Monsieur le Président de l'Assemblée Nationale, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Monsieur le Premier ministre, Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du gouvernement, Chers amis arméniens, Chers compatriotes, Mesdames et Messieurs,
Je voudrais vous dire la joie et l'émotion qui sont les miennes d'être aujourd'hui en Arménie, quelques jours seulement après la célébration du 20e anniversaire de votre indépendance, sur cette place de France qui dit si bien les liens qui unissent nos deux pays.
La statue de Rodin dédiée au peintre Jules Bastien-Lepage qui est dévoilée aujourd'hui achèvera de donner à cette place le visage de l'amitié entre la France et l'Arménie.
Depuis toujours, mes chers amis, l'Arménie est dans le cœur des Français, nos deux pays, l'Arménie et la France, se ressemblent.
L'Arménie, comme la France, est riche d'une histoire deux fois millénaire, et l'Arménie comme la France est attachée à sa culture. Elle revendique une identité qui s'est forgée dans les épreuves de l'Histoire et c'est dans l'adversité que Français et Arméniens se sont le mieux révélés, et qu'ils ont découvert une force en eux qu'ils ne soupçonnaient même pas.
Les liens entre la France et l'Arménie sont enracinés dans la longue durée.
La Chrétienté, les Croisades appartiennent à notre histoire commune.
Le dernier roi d'Arménie se trouve aux côtés des rois de France dans la basilique de Saint-Denis.
Le Collège arménien, inauguré par Lamartine, est aujourd'hui encore, à Sèvres, un lieu de référence pour l'enseignement de l'arménien en Europe. Au XIXe siècle, l'élite arménienne a été formée à Paris.
Mais c'est dans les terribles épreuves du siècle passé qu'a fini de se nouer l'amitié indéfectible entre l'Arménie et la France.
Au lendemain de la première entreprise d'extermination de l'histoire moderne, des dizaines de milliers d'Arméniens ont cherché et trouvé refuge en France. Ils y ont trouvé dans la France une seconde patrie, sans jamais oublier l'Arménie.
La France a reconnu la sentence de mort décrétée alors contre tout un peuple en l'appelant par son nom, le seul nom possible, le génocide, un génocide.
Ici à Erevan, je veux dire à la Turquie qu'elle doit regarder son histoire en face.
Il n'y a que les grands pays qui sont capables de regarder leur histoire en face, et la réconciliation ne peut se faire qu'à ce prix.
Mes chers amis, la France est fière de tous ces fils et ces filles d'Arménie, qui lui ont donné le meilleur d'eux-mêmes, et qui l'ont enrichie.
La France n'oublie pas ce qu'elle doit à des hommes comme Missak Manouchian, héros de la résistance contre les nazis, c'est un Arménien qui nous a aidé à retrouver notre honneur et notre liberté. *
Chers amis,
L'héritage des siècles a fait de la France et de l'Arménie, à jamais, des nations sœurs. Nous devons maintenant nous projeter dans l'avenir, nous devons relever ensemble les défis de l'avenir.
Avec la fin du communisme, avec la fin de l'Union soviétique, l'Arménie a retrouvé la maîtrise de son destin.
Le 21 septembre 1991 s'est ouvert un nouveau chapitre de votre histoire.
D'abord, hélas, ce furent des années de guerre.
Des années ponctuées d'épreuves et de souffrances.
L'Arménie les a surmontées grâce aux vertus de son peuple : le courage, l'ardeur au travail, une formidable envie de vivre, qui est le propre des Arméniens.
Vous pouvez être fiers du chemin parcouru depuis l'Indépendance !
L'alternance au pouvoir, la construction d'une démocratie apaisée, l'admission au sein du Conseil de l'Europe, le rapprochement avec l'Union européenne ; tout cela, c'est autant de succès dont le peuple et le gouvernement arménien peuvent être fiers.
L'Arménie a le droit de ne plus vivre en état de guerre, fût-elle larvée.
L'Arménie a le droit de ne plus vivre enclavée, car cet isolement imposé empêche son développement et l'avenir de sa jeunesse.
Le temps est venu de trouver le chemin d'une paix durable.
Le temps est venu de concrétiser l'espérance qu'avait fait naître, Monsieur le Président, dans le monde entier la signature des protocoles entre l'Arménie et la Turquie.
Le temps est venu de prendre le risque de la paix, car le risque le plus grand pour l'Arménie, c'est celui de l'immobilisme.
La France sera à vos côtés, et redoublera d'efforts pour vous aider à trouver un règlement juste, durable, pacifique.
Aucun pays, mieux que la France, ne comprend ce que représente pour l'Arménie le Haut-Karabagh.
Aucun pays, plus que la France, ne mesure le poids de la Turquie dans la mémoire collective arménienne.
Mais aucun pays ne sait davantage que la France, mes chers amis, qu'il n'est de blessure si vive qui ne puisse être guérie, qu'il n'est de fossé si profond entre deux peuples qui ne puisse être comblé. C'est le chemin que la France a emprunté avec l'Allemagne après 1945, alors que le souvenir de l'occupation et des atrocités de la guerre était encore si douloureux. C'est sur les ruines du conflit le plus meurtrier de l'Histoire qu'a été renouée l'amitié entre deux peuples, le peuple allemand et le peuple français. Une amitié qui est aujourd'hui plus que jamais le pilier de l'Europe.
Il aura fallu la vision d'hommes d'exception, le général de Gaulle et le chancelier Adenauer, pour que soit scellée la réconciliation entre la France et l'Allemagne.
Arméniens, Azerbaidjanais, Turcs, c'est ce chemin qu'il vous faut à votre tour emprunter. Il n'y en a pas d'autres. C'est le chemin de la paix. Je sais que le peuple arménien en a la volonté, et que son Président en a l'étoffe. C'est ce même message de paix que je porterai tout à l'heure à Bakou et que j'adresserai aux dirigeants turcs.
La France aidera l'Arménie. Elle aidera l'Arménie à développer son économie.
La France et ses entreprises seront à vos côtés.
Nos deux économies ont commencé de se lier l'une à l'autre.
Nos deux peuples aiment travailler ensemble parce qu'ils se respectent, parce qu'ils ont en partage des trésors de culture et de civilisation, parce qu'ils se comprennent.
Je pense à l'Université française d'Arménie, d'où sortent chaque année plus de 200 jeunes économistes et juristes arméniens.
Je pense aux 250 écoles arméniennes qui enseignent le français, aux écoles bilingues maternelles, primaires et professionnelles.
Je pense aux centaines d'étudiants arméniens qui étudient dans les universités françaises et je les souhaite encore plus nombreux pour l'avenir.
Le moment est venu de franchir une nouvelle étape, avec la création d'un véritable lycée français, ici en Arménie, à Erevan, qui de la maternelle à la terminale, formera les élites francophones arméniennes de demain. C'est la décision que nous avons prise.
Le temps est venu, Monsieur le Président, pour l'Arménie de devenir un membre à part entière de la grande famille francophone.
L'Arménie aime le Français, aime la culture française, sans jamais oublier sa propre langue et sa propre culture.
Au moment même où je m'adresse à vous, des archéologues français et arméniens travaillent main dans la main pour exhumer le passé glorieux de l'Arménie qui appartient au patrimoine de l'humanité.
Il existe entre nos deux pays une soif de culture partagée qui a peu d'équivalent dans le monde.
Robert Gediguian, Serge Avedekian, Alain Terzian, Simon Abkarian, Vahan Martirosian, André Manoukian, Michel Legrand, Hélène Segara, et Charles Aznavour, ce sont de grands Français et de grands Arméniens, c'est tout le génie de notre mélange qui est incarné dans ces personnalités.
Peu de peuples au monde ont traversé au cours de leur histoire autant d'épreuves que le peuple arménien.
Plus rares encore sont ceux qui, comme le peuple arménien, ont dû lutter pour leur survie même, contre des forces qui voulaient vous anéantir.
Si la nation arménienne célèbre cette année le 20e anniversaire de son indépendance, c'est à elle-même qu'elle le doit, car les peuples victimes de génocide savent au plus profond d'eux-mêmes que c'est d'abord en comptant sur leurs propres forces qu'ils sauveront leurs enfants et leur donneront un avenir.
La France est fière d'avoir accueilli les enfants persécutés d'Arménie.
Ces enfants d'Arménie sont devenus des enfants de France.
Comments by Sukru Server Aya
I thank both Mr. O.E. Lutem and Maxime Gauin, for their very valuable comments.
I submit Page 97 from my new “pocket book” (available on order in English or Turkish) and also in DVD format, and ask the super hypocrite Mr. President, to explain to Armenians also his true fidelity, which is clearly visible in the Sykes-Picot map given below. 1916 is one year after 1915 and France had already wiped out Armenia completely! Does he have a face?
Travesty is not limited to street hookers; the political ones are much worse and harmful to countries and generations to follow. Sukru S. Aya
On October 20, 1921, France was the first major power to sign a peace treaty with the Kemalists recognizing Ankara’s government, after the first de facto recognition of May 1920. France even provided weapons and ammunition, which were used against the Greek invasion forces. Henry Franklin-Bouillon, a Centrist politician and chairman of the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee, was the French chief negotiator. Contrary to legend, Franklin-Bouillon did not make unilateral concessions, still less by his own initiatives. On the contrary, mutual concessions were made, and Franklin-Bouillon was the (efficient executioner) of a policy decided by Aristide Briand, President of the Ministers Council (Prime minister), after a gradual change in both political milieu and public opinion.[1] The successor of Briand, Raymond Poincaré, sent a friend of Turks, Colonel Louis Mougin, as a representative to Ankara in 1922.[2] . . .
From October 25 to 30, 1968, President Charles de Gaulle visited Turkey, paid tribute to Atatürk (“Atatürk attained the greatest glory: the national revival”), and signed a bilateral agreement of cooperation in various fields.
By a remarkable coincidence, the French and Turkish ministers of interior signed in Ankara, on October 7, 2011, an important agreement on police cooperation. The agreement is devoted to fighting terrorism, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other kind of serious crimes. It also includes cooperation in the training of anti-riot police forces. Formalizing the close ties which have been forged during the last years between the police forces of the two countries, the text provides for an exchange of intelligence—especially against terrorism and drug smuggling—experts, and techniques, especially for forensic and technical police.
The sharing of intelligence is especially important for Turkey. It means that all information obtained by the Direction générale de la surveillance extérieure (DGSE; General Directorate of External Intelligence) or any other French agency on the activities of the PKK, DHKP-C, or any other terrorist group can be shared with Turkey. France has a long experience of terrorism, antiterrorism, and bilateral cooperation against terrorism. The probable disappearing of the Basque ETA will be largely due to the increasing Franco-Spanish cooperation since the agreement of 1984. In August 2001, the French counter-intelligence agency sent the FBI a file on Zacarias Moussaoui, a French al-Qaida terrorist of Moroccan origin. If the file would have been considered more carefully, the attacks of September 11 probably would had been prevented. Indeed, Moussaoui was arrested on August 16, 2001, and files on the future attacks were recorded in his personal computer.[3]
Concerning the PKK, the French police have shown their effectiveness during the last years. The eleven perpetrators of arson against Turkish-owned shops in 2007 were arrested in 2008 and sentenced in January 19, 2009, for the fires and some also for the fundraising of PKK activities; the chief of the group received five years in jail and a life-time exile (because he does not have French citizenship). A PKK terrorist who in 2008 hurled a Molotov cocktail at the Turkish representation to Europe’s Council in Strasbourg (killing or wounding no one, by chance) was sentenced to two years in jail in 2010. 18 other people were judged in Paris, in July 2011, for the fundraising of both PKK and TAK activities. An even more efficient fight, in both France and Turkey, can be expected in the context of the agreement signed on October 7.
However, contrary to some inaccurate information published in newspapers, the extradition issue is not directly concerned by the bilateral Franco-Turkish agreement. Before its signature, the French authorities already started to provide their Turkish counterparts information to make files of extradition incontrovertible, which would eventually be presented in front of French tribunals.
More regrettable is the fact that if the agreements of 1921 and 1968 were the result of a coherent policy decided from the top, the last step toward better relations was more the result of Mr. Guéant’s personal influence, of Turkish diplomatic efforts, and of demands by the French police and justice system. Despite having been Minister of Interior from 2002 to 2004, then from 2005 to 2007, Mr. Sarkozy personally paid little interest to the cooperation against PKK and DHKP-C. His words pronounced in Erevan, apparently without much preparation and led by a sudden internal (electoral) motivation, definitely does not lead to great optimism. The presence of Patrick Devedjian, former lawyer of Armenian terrorists in the 1980s, behind Mr. Sarkozy in Erevan is also self-explanatory.
On the other hand, it is fair to notice that as early as Friday morning, Jean-David Levitte, foreign affairs adviser to Mr. Sarkozy, called the Turkish embassy requesting a meeting with Ambassador Mr. Tahsin Burcuoğlu the next day in the afternoon to prevent a new crisis—contrary to the inaccurate information of some newspapers, asserting that Mr. Burcuoğlu came to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by solely his own initiative. The same Mr. Levitte explained to the Turkish government, as early as May 2007, that the promises of Mr. Sarkozy to obtain the vote of the Armenian censorship bill in the Senate would not be carried out—this what actually happened. Similarly, Mr. Guéant denied in Ankara that Mr. Sarkozy gave an “ultimatum” to Turkey.
“Words fly away, but writings remain.” The agreement signed this month is in writing. [1] Paul Dumont, Mustapha Kemal invente la Turquie moderne, (Bruxelles : Complexe, 1997), pp. 111-117 ; Alain Quella-Villéger, La Politique méditerranéenne de la France (1870-1923). Un témoin, Pierre Loti, (Paris : L’Harmattan, 1991), pp. 165-191. [2] Paul Dumont, « À l’aube du rapprochement franco-turc : le colonel Louis Mougin, premier représentant de la France auprès du gouvernement d’Ankara (1922-1925) », in Paul Dumont and Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont (ed.), La Turquie et la France à l’époque d’Atatürk, Paris-İstanbul, ADET/Les éditions Isis, 1981, pp. 75-106. [3] « Zacarias Moussaoui— Ce que la DST a transmis au FBI », L’Express, June 11, 2002, http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/ce-que-la-dst-a-transmis-au-fbi_498789.html (also see the embedded copy of the google translated version below); The 9/11 Commission Report , pp. 273-276, http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf (also see the embedded copy below); Bill Gertz, Breakdown. How America’s Intelligence Failures Led to September 11, (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2002), p. 33.»http://www.turkishweekly.net
Comments by Sukru Server Aya
I thank both Mr. O.E. Lutem and Maxime Gauin, for their very valuable comments.
I submit Page 97 from my new “pocket book” (available on order in English or Turkish) and also in DVD format, and ask the super hypocrite Mr. President, to explain to Armenians also his true fidelity, which is clearly visible in the Sykes-Picot map given below. 1916 is one year after 1915 and France had already wiped out Armenia completely! Does he have a face?
Travesty is not limited to street hookers; the political ones are much worse and harmful to countries and generations to follow. Sukru S. Aya
