The World's Armenian Composer

The Economist
Responses to Norman Stone
Turkish-Armenian relations

SIR-Norman Stone’s letter has several points that are simply untrue.
“The great bulk of specialists in the time and region” who refuse to
acknowledge the Armenian genocide, the peak of which was in 1915, are
in fact a handful of people of which almost all names he has
enumerated. Among those who call the things by their names are the
respected International Association of Genocide Scholars (1997 and
2005), 126 scholars of Holocaust (2001), the Nobel Prize laureate Elie
Wiesel and numerous others.

It is erroneous to believe that the Armenians in the diaspora-
primarily a consequence of the genocide- are the only ones who pursue
international recognition. The Republic of Armenia aims at its
recognition, and in the first place by Turkey, not only because it is
our moral responsibility, but also for the very sake of normalization
of relations and reasons of security. Nevertheless, the Armenian
Government does not demand that the recognition be a precondition for
opening the border and establishing bilateral ties.

It is true that a considerable number of Armenians have left the
country, partially because of the ground communications blockade
imposed by Turkey. However, “precipitous decline in population” does
not reflect the precise picture: there are now more Armenians coming
into the country than leaving it. And the GDP growth has been steadily
two-digit over the recent 6 years, without any oil or gas.

It is also true that Armenian businessmen would benefit from open
borders and cooperation, as would their Turkish counterparts benefit.
However, it would be hard for them to do that at the expense of
history: almost every family in Armenia has some kin who were killed in
or banished from Western Armenia. Therefore, we believe the border
should be opened and trade should start while problems can be settled
in a following intergovernmental and public discourse.

As your readers will certainly know well, today in most places debating
the 1915 Genocide the question is no more whether it happened – there
is ample evidence – it is rather how much the recognition affects their
relations with Turkey, a convenient ally of the West in various anti-
or pro- campaigns in time and space.

Vahe Gabrielyan
Armenian Ambassador, London

SIR – Norman Stone is known for both his enthusiastic embrace of Turkey’s

nationalist establishment and his emphatic defence of Turkish policies

towards the Kurds and Armenians. It is therefore not surprising that he

would take the opportunity to attack what he perceives as enemies of Turkey

(Letters, June 7th).

This time, however, he stretches the point. It is not theArmenian diaspora that

is hampering the future of Turkish-Armenian relations. Rather, it is the sad fact

that historians are being harassed by illiberal prosecutors, denied entry to Turkish

archives and targeted by zealous nationalist activists.

Together with authors of fiction, who are investigated and tried for statements

made by their dramatis personae, they would beg to disagree with Mr Stone’s

assertion that the events of 1915 “should now be left to historians”. Someone

who cannot respond to Mr Stone is the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink.

He was killed last year for his views on the tragedy of 1915 and his effort to

overcome the wall of hatred separating Armenians and Turks.

Kerem Oktem
Oxford

SIR – I suspect that you would never have published a letter belittling actual

historic events if the writer were questioning the Holocaust. And yet you didn’t

hesitate to run such a letter when it came to the Armenian genocide, an historical

fact validated by all credible sources.

The Armenian diaspora didn’t magically appear after 1915. The causes were

very simple; forced marches in the Syrian deserts, the looting of an historical

homeland, and rape and murder. Forgive us, Mr Stone, for not being able to let

such a tragic event go without expecting proper reparations for the planned murder

of 1.5m Armenians who lived peacefully in the Caucasus for centuries.

Shiraz Vartanian
Los Angeles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To remind you, this is the letter that started this exchange:

Turkish-Armenian relations

SIR – It is very good to read (“A Caucasian cheese circle”, May 24th) that Turkish and Armenian businessmen are trying, across their closed border, to get something going, even if just a symbolic joint cheese (it is a species of Gruyère, apparently introduced in tsarist Russian times, and not bad).

They need each other. North-eastern Turkey has been doing better in the past few years because of the Baku pipeline and the proposed Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway line, but would do better still if trade could be properly opened up. On its side, Armenia is a landlocked little country with a GDP per head one-quarter that of Estonia and which has seen a precipitous decline in population since independence (some of it through migration to Istanbul). Co-operation makes obvious sense.

However, the Armenian diaspora has poisoned the relationship by its endless insistence on having this or that foreign legislative body, from Congress to Cardiff city council, “recognise” as “genocide” the tragic events of 1915. But the great bulk of specialists in the time and region, starting with Bernard Lewis at Princeton, are sceptical as to whether “genocide” is the right word for a tragedy in some degree provoked by the Armenian nationalists of the time. The most succinct statement of the problem comes in “The Chatham House Version” by the late Elie Kedourie of the London School of Economics. This is, as the Turkish government says, an historical matter that should now be left to historians. I am certain that Armenian businessmen, desperately anxious for better relations with Turkey, entirely agree.

Norman Stone

Oxford

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~