Conferences

International Turkish-Armenian History and Culture Symposium was held in Ankara with a large participation on 27-28 November 2001. Three ASAM, Institute for Armenian Research researchers, Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer KASIM, Dr. Sedat LAÇ?NER and ?enol KANTARCI presented their papers in the symposium.

Kamer KASIM presented a paper titled Domestic Politics’ Affect On Armenian Foreign Policy And Its Reflections To The Region. He evaluated Armenian foreign policy during Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharian era. He particularly analyzed diaspora’s effect on Armenian foreign policy. Kamer Kas?m argued that diaspora based political parties in Armenia tried to impose their own agenda and ideas about Armenian foreign policy. Diaspora based political parties, particularly; Armenian Revolutionary Front’s (Dashnak) foreign policy approach was unrealistic, considering the fact that newly independent Armenia needs peace and good relations with its neighbors.

Kamer Kas?m further argued that Ter-Petrosyan and Armenian National Movement tried to establish good relations with Turkey. However, Ter-Petrosyan was harshly criticized by diaspora based political parties. The Nagorno-Karabakh problem was an important effect on Armenian domestic and foreign policies and the process led to the resignation of Ter-Petrosyan started with his acceptance of CSCE’s proposal for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem    

Dr. Sedat Laçiner’s paper was on the anti-Semitic movements in Armenia. Dr. Laçiner, in his speech, gave a brief historical background of Armenian anti-Semitism and then moved to the modern Armenian State and the occupied Karabakh region. Laçiner argued that the Armenians clearly sported the Nazi administration in their anti-Semitic policies: “Armenians in Germany and in many other countries helped the Nazis in order to destroy the Jewish communities. The main reason was the ideological similarities. In addition, the political aims should not be neglected: For Hitler the Caucasian oil was vital and he considered the Armenians with some other nations as a useful tool in occupying the region while the Armenians saw the Nazi occupation as a golden chance to establish their independence state. The Armenian periodicals of that time vividly prove this co-operation”.

Dr. Sedat Laçiner focused on the situation of the Jewish minority in the occupied Nagorno Karabakh region. Dr. Laçiner argued that the Jews’ problem after the Armenian occupation of the region increased: “The Armenian scepticism had disturbed the Jewish and the Turkish people before the 1990s, yet the Azerbaijani administration had prevented any possible ethnic clashes. As a matter of fact that the Karabagh under the Azerbaijani rule was considered as a ‘minorities-haven’ by the Soviet Jewish and many had immigrated to the region. However this picture was completely changed by the Armenian occupation. The nationalist Armenians occupied the Karabakh province and about 20 percent of Azerbaijan, and they declared their independent state. The Karabakh state has not been recognised by any state in the world although the State of Armenia secretly gives financial and military support to this illegal ‘state’. The nationalist Karabakh Armenians, after the independence, not only massacred the Azerbaijanis but also saw all the minority groups as ‘enemy’, including the Jewish who have lived here for the ages. Now the Jews are less than 500 families, yet they were still accused.”

Laçiner argued that another reason for the Armenian hostility towards the Jewish is the current co-operation between Turkey and Israel. Laçiner said “Armenia choice the wrong side, bad men. It signed military agreements wit Iran, Syria and Russia and threaten the regional states, namely Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. It opened its territories for the Russians troops while Turkey and Azerbaijan act with the Western democracies like the United States and the United Kingdom. The Western block in the region makes efforts to strengthen stability, democracy and the liberal economy while the Russians try to maintain their military domination over the Caucasus. This balance has isolated more the State of Armenia and the Armenians in the Karabakh. Surprisingly the Armenians have accused the others for their choice and some of the Armenian groups talked about a ‘great Jewish conspiracy’. For these groups the Jewish in Israel, the United States and Europe organise this ‘anti-Armenian’ block. As a result the Armenian anger turned into the minorities and the Jewish people in Armenia.”

?enol KANTARCI talked about the Armenian diaspora in the United States and its activities. He argued that Armenian diaspora aimed to manipulate the American public opinion in favour to the Armenian cause. Kantarc? gave information about Armenian immigration to the United States, Armenian organizations and political activities and their publications in the United States. He also dealt with the September the 11th terrorist attack and its reflections on the Armenians and the Armenian question. Kantarc? stated that the claim of that the Armenians spread all over the world after the 1915 Re-location Act and formed diaspora in different countries was false and unfounded. When considered the archive documents, it is obviously understood that the mentioned claim was used in order to prove the Armenian arguments, Hai Tahd. He mentioned that the Armenians had always been an immigrant nation, and they had been forced to re-located in many times as witnessed in the Byzantium Empire period. It can be argued that immigration has been one of the most natural characteristics of the Armenian history. In other words the 1915 Relocation Act cannot be considered as the starting point of the Armenian immigrations or of the formation of the international Armenian diaspora. The situation in the US also proves this claim; The Armenians had immigrated to the US before 1915 as a result of the economic considerations. In his speech Kantarc? argued that the Armenian lobbies have made great efforts to prevent improvement in the relations between Turkey and the US. They could not succede to put an end to the good relations although they damaged the relations for short periods. The reason for their failure, he argued, that is not their lack of efforts, but the American national interests regarding Turkey and the Middle East. Since the US needs Turkey’s support in its foreign policy, the American foreign policy makers (the President, the secretaries and the Congress) did not allow the Armenians to prevent good relations between the US and Turkish Republic.

A conference titled as Armenian Problem From Past to Present was held at Abant ?zzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey on 25th of December. Rtd. Ambassador and Director of Institute For Armenian Research, Ömer Engin Lütem and two researchers from the same institute, Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer KASIM and Assist. Prof. Dr. ?brahim KAYA participated the conference.

Director of Institute for Armenian Research and Rtd. Ambassador Ömer E. LÜTEM’s speech explained Armenian problem from its start and he mainly focused on the developments in the Armenian problem since 1980. Lütem identified the period between 1980 and 1986 as Armenian Terror period and in the period from 1986 till today Armenians fastened their activities for international recognition of so-called genocide. Lütem mentioned that although the killing of the Turkish Consul General and his deputy in Los Angeles in 1973 was not organized terror act, it triggered organized Armenian terror. Ömer Lütem stated that the aim of Armenian terrorism was to publicize the Armenian genocide claims. 34 Turkish diplomats and Turkish officials were murdered in foreign countries, between 1973 and 1985.  The assassins attacked the representative symbol of the Turkish state. In Turkey books were published and speakers from Turkey attended international conferences about Armenian problem until 1986. Lütem stated that due to the Turkey’s activities and lack of sympathy for terror in the international arena, Armenian terror against Turkish diplomats stopped in 1986. After 1986 with the increasing activities of the Armenians for the recognition of the so-called genocide, some countries and the US states adopted resolutions, which recognized so-called Armenian genocide.   

Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamer KASIM gave a speech titled ‘The Nagorno-Karaba? Conflict and Turkey’s Relations With Armenia’. He mentioned that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was one of the bloodiest conflicts in the Caucasus, which claimed 25,000 lives and created 1 million refugees and as a result of the conflict, over 20 per cent of the territory of Azerbaijan remained under Armenian occupation. Kas?m stated that Turkey’s foreign policy towards the conflict aimed at mobilizing the international community to condemn Armenian occupation and to prevent the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict being defined as a Christian-Muslim confrontation.

Kamer Kas?m argued that the Khojaly massacre was the most important development, which turned international media’s attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In his speech, Kas?m also dealt with Turkey’s peace proposal, which included transferring an Armenian controlled land bridge between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijani control and leaving a part of Nagorno-Karabakh under the Armenian control. But the proposal was rejected by both sides.

In terms of Turkey’s relations with Armenia, Kamer Kas?m stated that during Ter-Petrosyan era in Armenia, Turkey tried to improve its relations and Turkey aimed to strengthen Armenian President Ter-Petrosyan’s hand against strong nationalist Dashnak opposition on the basis that eventually Armenia would reach an agreement with Azerbaijan.

Kamer KASIM argued that the normalization of Turkey’s relations with Armenia would only possible after the Nagorno-Karabakh problem was solved.

Assistant Professor Doctor ?brahim KAYA delivered a speech on “the 1915 Relocation of the Armenians and Genocide Claims”. He took a comparative approach and highlighted the differences between the Jewish Holocaust and Armenian case.

?brahim Kaya stated that with the increasing awareness of the Holocaust around the world, the concept of Holocaust gained currency as a most horrendous crime. Therefore, the charge of Holocaust became a weapon and the supporters of the so-called Armenian genocide have frequently used the term “Armenian Holocaust”. Because the Holocaust is the most inhuman treatment of man to man and anything similar, or the same, deserves to be condemned and, consequently, punished. A significant portion of Armenian efforts has been devoted to establishing a linkage between their own historical experiences and those of European Jewry during the World War II. This is evidenced by frequent using of the infamous Hitler quote: “Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?”, although there is no historical basis for attributing such a statement to Hitler. The aim is to prove that Hitler was encouraged by the lack of reaction to the fate of the Armenians.

Assistant Professor Kaya examined the main differences of the Holocaust and Armenian case. As ?brahim Kaya pointed out that it has become clear that they had not much in common. Anti-Semitism and Nazism provided the ideological background for the Holocaust. There is no doubt that without anti-Semitism and racist ideology, the laws discriminating Jews would not have passed. The Holocaust was an intentional and planned organized crime as expressed by the Wansee Conference. Not only the Jews but also other ‘inferior races’ became the victims of the Nazis. Moreover, no victim involved in any activity against the Nazis. The perpetrators were brought before the justice after the World War II.

Kaya stated that the Armenian case greatly, if not completely, differs from the Holocaust. No anti-Turk or anti-Muslim element, let alone anti-Armenianism, existed in the Ottoman legal and social system. Ottoman millet system allowed the Armenians, among other minorities, to keep their ethnic cultures, observe their religion, and use their language freely. In contrast with the victims of the Nazis, under the influence of the nationalistic and socialist ideologies the Armenians formed revolutionary organizations and carried out activities to terrorize the civilian population of both Muslim and non-Muslim during the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. The corroboration of Armenians with Russians, hostile of the Ottomans, in the World War I left the government with no alternative but to relocate those who posed security threats to other parts of the Empire. Kaya pointed out that the Ottoman authorities took every means to care for the emigrated and their property. However, the deportation was painful because displacing thousands of people and resettling them is not an easy task. Climatic conditions, hunger, epidemics and lack of medical supplies as well as the fighting between the various Muslim and Armenian groups claimed a considerable number of the Armenian lives during the process of resettlement. But there is no evidence that the casualties were intentional. On contrary, by using official legal material Kaya put forward that the aim of the Ottoman government was not the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians. By using the official documents of Britain Assistant Professor Kaya demonstrated that although the Western press widely covered the relocation and told the stories of massacres as a apart of the war-time propaganda, the alleged criminals were released even without charges being formulated against them before an international tribunal, because neither Britain nor the USA was able to provide any evidence capable of legal proof in any court of law. 

Generations of genocide conference was held by Institute of Contemporary History and Wiener Library at University of London, 26-27 January 2002

The Conference started with an opening speech delivered by Ben Barkow, Director of the Institute and Library. Barkow read the expectations of the Home Office for establishing a British National Holocaust Memorial Day, first of which was commemorated last year. Barkow underlined that the Nazis denied humanity to the Jews believing ‘others’ must have been exterminated. Holocaust must always be remembered and teaching of tolerance and respect for ‘others’ must be ensured. That is what a National Holocaust Day is about.

The opening speech was followed by the first panel chaired by Dr. Mark Levene, University of Southampton/UK with the participation of Dr. Joyce Apsel, International Association of Genocide Scholars-New York University/USA, Prof. Margaret Cox, Bournmouth University/UK, Andrew Hogg, Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture/UK, Prof. William Schabas, National University of Ireland/Ireland and Dr. Margrit Wreschner Rustow, Psychoanalyst. Dr. Levene pointed out that many victim groups of genocide were not represented at the Conference. Levene’s remarks were significant especially for Turkey as he stated that the Balkan Turks and Circassians were the victims of the first genocide of the 20th century. He also emphasised that over 50 genocides were took place after the World War II. Cox underlined that over 170 million civilians were killed by governments in the 20th century and explained the contribution of forensic archaeology/anthropology to the Tribunals and researchers on genocide. Prof Schabas, a leading legal expert on human rights in general and genocide in particular, made a presentation on the law of genocide explaining the meaning of the term ‘genocide’ as accepted by the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. He particularly pointed out that there is an enlargement of application the crime of genocide by the recent ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia. This attitude would lead ignoring some of the constituent legal elements of the crime of genocide such as intent and protected groups.

The first panel of the second day was chaired by Prof. Frank Chalk. Armenian Zoryan Institute’s Director Prof. Vahakn Dadrian delivered the first speech. This was followed by a presentation on Romanies and Racism by Prof. Ian Hancock, University of Texas. Dadrian’s paper was entitled “The Documentation of the Armenian Genocide in the Light of Persistent Turkish Denials”. Prof. Dadrian labelled Turks as occupiers from Central Asia who used Islam for ‘extermination’. According to Dadrian Turkish Denials are based on five arguments which follow:
1. Deportations are not massacres.
2. Deportations were applied to the segment of an Armenian population, not whole of them.
3. Some Armenians provoked Turks, engaging with terrorist activities.
4. There was a civil war, not state-organized massacre.
5. Turks lost more lives.

Saying there was no enough time, Dadrian examined only the last two of the arguments mentioned above. Although he accepted that some 2 and half million Turks lost their lives, he added that this figure involved battlefield losses. He classified the Armenian casualties as “losses of a centrally organized crime”. He never accepted that the Armenian losses were, even at least partially, as a result of a civil unrest. Dadrian named his methodology “Inclusion and Exclusion Paradigm” by which he mean using of documents of Imperial Germany and Austria, war-time allies of the Ottomans, and official Ottoman Documents consisting of Court Martials’ documents, Parliamentary Debates and what he called ‘Ittihad’s unofficial orders’. Despite its shiny name, his paradigm was based on the documents whose authotencity has always been in question. It is also interesting that he paradigm did not include the official Ottoman orders on the deportation, which in contrast to the so-called documents provided by Dadrian, and proved to be fraud many years ago by researchers of history, provided for caring of the population to be resettled not extermination even by implication. Dadrian claimed that the Turks objective was to create an ethnically purified territory by exterminating non-Muslim elements. He failed, however, by not answering why not some of Armenians and all of the Greeks and Jews of the Ottoman Empire were exempted from the relocation.

Prof. Peter Pulzer, University of Oxford/UK, Dr. Eric Markusen, Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies/Denmark and Dr. Greg Stanton, Genocide Watch/USA participated in the second panel, which was chaired by Dr. Raphael Gross, Leo Baeck Institute/UK. Dr. Markusen gave a talk on the genocide in the Former Yugoslavia, while Dr. Stanton talked on the possibility of the prevention of genocide in Rwanda.

After a lunch break, workshop presentations took place. Workshop Two was the one with direct reference to the so-called Armenian Genocide. Dr. Yair Auron, Open University/Israel, Prof. Kevork Bardakjian, University of Michigan/USA, Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, Ruhr University/Germany and Ara Sarafian Gomidas Institute/UK delivered speeches on the so-called Armenian genocide. Dr. Auron talked on the “Attitudes of the Jewish ‘Yishuv’, the Zionist Movement and State of Israel toward the Armenian Genocide”, simply summarising his book, entitled the Banality of Indifference. Upon a question on the reasons of the refusal for rejecting the recognition of the 1915 events as genocide by the State of Israel, Yair Auron publicly blamed Israel of being “unmoral”. Although Dr. Auron tries to draw some parallels between the Holocaust and what the Armenians experienced in 1915, Israel and Jewish researchers and public overwhelmingly do not agree with him. Dr. Hilmar Kaiser also spoke of the Turkification of Anatolia and massacres as a tool for this end as did Dadrian a day ago. Bardakjian and Sarafian also blamed the Turks for the massacres of the Armenians. In favour of their arguments both used the documents, which proved long ago to be forgeries. Participants asked why they cannot produce the original, authentic versions of the documents which they use for their arguments, including that of the document contained the infamous Hitler quotation of “Who, after all, remembers the Armenians” and why if there was a real massacre, the British who deported the leading figures accused by the Armenians of the alleged massacres to Malta released without being charged in a court of law. The speakers were not able to giving satisfactory answers to the questions. About twenty participants, more then fifteens were local Armenians, comprised the workshop.

The last panel was held with the participation of Dr. Kurt Grünberg. Prof. Henry Huttenbach, Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, Linda Melvern, Kemal Pervanic talked at the closing plenary. Dr. Kaiser pointed out that the only a minimal amount of the sources of the historical facts on the 1915 events have been studied so far. He also added that the recent Turkish publications deserve to be taken seriously. Dr. Kaiser gave the impression that as a genocide scholar he is open to academic discussion.

The conference concluded with a speech of Lutz Becker, Executive Committee, Wiener Library. It will be interesting to see whether Turks and Circassians among others will be represented in the next years National Holocaust Day events as the victims of genocide. It will also be very helpful to bring together the real scholars, with open mind and non-partisan attitudes, to discuss the Armenian and Turkish points of view and exchange ideas.