issue 27 of the Armenian Church News of the Diocese via the link below.
|
![["Armenian Diocese of the UK"]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uyfXf8vcWaI3otK6i1R0g0oKV9m3miCKRMonvfqKD-nUBjoZzpNQD3JXYOHBATXLh1EVrXtmnJmlDI2KibTmQvM3N7rfHLgaNwZeUaBtKTAioQvcdFE3dV7_on224=s0-d)
Armenian Genocide Resource Center
8 months ago
Sunday, 25 September 2016
Armenian News... A Topalian... Military parade on 25th Anniversary
Military parade on 25th anniversray of Armenia’s Independence
Fox News
Sept 21 2016
Armenia shows off powerful ballistic missiles at parade
YEREVAN, Armenia – Armenia has proudly showed off state-of-the-art
Russian ballistic missiles at a military parade marking its
independence day.
The Iskander missiles displayed Wednesday are capable of striking
targets up to 300 kilometers (186 miles) with high precision, adding
muscle to the Armenian military amid tensions over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nagorno-Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan, but since a
separatist war ended in 1994 it has been under the control of forces
that claim to be local ethnic Armenians but that Azerbaijan claims
include regular Armenian military. Efforts to negotiate a settlement
have failed.
Sept 21 2016
Armenia shows off powerful ballistic missiles at parade
YEREVAN, Armenia – Armenia has proudly showed off state-of-the-art
Russian ballistic missiles at a military parade marking its
independence day.
The Iskander missiles displayed Wednesday are capable of striking
targets up to 300 kilometers (186 miles) with high precision, adding
muscle to the Armenian military amid tensions over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nagorno-Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan, but since a
separatist war ended in 1994 it has been under the control of forces
that claim to be local ethnic Armenians but that Azerbaijan claims
include regular Armenian military. Efforts to negotiate a settlement
have failed.
armradio.am
President Sargsyan’s address on 25th anniversary of
Armenia’s Independence
21 Sep 2016
Today, at the Republic Square President Serzh Sargsyan was present at the Military Parade of the RA Armed Forces dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Armenia’s Independence.
Address by Serzh Sargsyan, President of the Republic of Armenia,
at the Military Parade
Soldiers, Officers, Generals,
My sisters and brothers,
I congratulate all of us on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Armenia.
We have made our choice by casting a ballot on this very day a quarter-century ago, but we are well aware that deep in our hearts and in our collective memory we had made that choice much earlier. We chose freedom at the times of Patriarch Haik. We are faithful to the decision that we had made back at the times of a bow and arrow. Today, at the 21st century weapons have changed, but we have not, and we are determined to defend our liberty. And this parade is a testimony to that.
In the ideal world the right, of course, is the source of might. Nevertheless, the contemporary world and our environment are far from being ideal. There are still circumstances, in which the might is the source of the right. We have got both our right and might to defend our freedom. And this parade is a testimony to that.
Freedom and independence need to be defended not exclusively from external threats. The domestic social and political life is no less important and vital to us. Our citizens should be free since a free individual and a free society function way more effectively. We can and we shall continue building an efficient nation, which will defend a free citizen and a free society. Unfree people theoretically can create a lot but not happiness.
In the course of the past 25 years we have registered irrevocable achievements. Occasionally we have made mistakes, occasionally we have run into the extremes, but at the end of the day we have been moving in the right direction. We are building our happiness with free thoughts and free hands, which means we produce peacefully and creatively. And there is only one obvious prescription as to how we shall move forward: it is to work hard, harder and harder.
Indeed, we highly value our achievements since we have paid a dear price for them. We shall multiply those achievements with our hard work and defend – with the might we have accumulated.
Long live our boys that vigilantly guard borders of Armenia: they are the primary guarantors of our freedom. Glory to the immortal heroes who fought in the Artsakh liberation war, to each and single brave fellow of ours. Glory to the young lions of this April, who wiped out all the hostile planning of our adversary. Some months ago at the grave of scout-machinegunner Sasun Mkrtchyan I promised on behalf of all of us that we would continue the sacred mission of Sasun and his friends, we would always keep lit the light that emanated from the new generation of Artsakh and Armenia, that had united all of us during those April days; united as a fist, ready to crush the head of the adversary that threatened our security. And we will keep our word. And this parade is a testimony to that.
Long live the citizen of the Republic of Armenia, a soil cultivator and construction worker, a physician and teacher, a miner and entrepreneur, a civil servant and artist. Glory to the citizen of Armenia, who establishes new values.
Long live the trilateral unity of Armenia-Artsakh-Diaspora: by joining our forces we are getting much stronger than one could imagine.
Long live our brothers and sisters that represent Armenia’s ethnic minorities, who enjoy equality and share responsibility in the consistent pursuit of the cause for development and defense of our country.
Long live the traditional Armenian family, which in spite of all currents remains the source of warmth that gives birth to heroes and brings up generations thirsting for knowledge.
My fellow compatriots,
I again congratulate all of us and Armenians around the globe with the quarter-century anniversary of the reestablishment of the independent Armenian statehood.
Glory to the Republic of Armenia!
Glory to the Armenian Armed Forces!
armenianweekly.com
25 Years on: Reclaiming Our True Independence
By Rupen Janbazian
21 Sep 2016
Today, at the Republic Square President Serzh Sargsyan was present at the Military Parade of the RA Armed Forces dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Armenia’s Independence.
Address by Serzh Sargsyan, President of the Republic of Armenia,
at the Military Parade
Soldiers, Officers, Generals,
My sisters and brothers,
I congratulate all of us on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Armenia.
We have made our choice by casting a ballot on this very day a quarter-century ago, but we are well aware that deep in our hearts and in our collective memory we had made that choice much earlier. We chose freedom at the times of Patriarch Haik. We are faithful to the decision that we had made back at the times of a bow and arrow. Today, at the 21st century weapons have changed, but we have not, and we are determined to defend our liberty. And this parade is a testimony to that.
In the ideal world the right, of course, is the source of might. Nevertheless, the contemporary world and our environment are far from being ideal. There are still circumstances, in which the might is the source of the right. We have got both our right and might to defend our freedom. And this parade is a testimony to that.
Freedom and independence need to be defended not exclusively from external threats. The domestic social and political life is no less important and vital to us. Our citizens should be free since a free individual and a free society function way more effectively. We can and we shall continue building an efficient nation, which will defend a free citizen and a free society. Unfree people theoretically can create a lot but not happiness.
In the course of the past 25 years we have registered irrevocable achievements. Occasionally we have made mistakes, occasionally we have run into the extremes, but at the end of the day we have been moving in the right direction. We are building our happiness with free thoughts and free hands, which means we produce peacefully and creatively. And there is only one obvious prescription as to how we shall move forward: it is to work hard, harder and harder.
Indeed, we highly value our achievements since we have paid a dear price for them. We shall multiply those achievements with our hard work and defend – with the might we have accumulated.
Long live our boys that vigilantly guard borders of Armenia: they are the primary guarantors of our freedom. Glory to the immortal heroes who fought in the Artsakh liberation war, to each and single brave fellow of ours. Glory to the young lions of this April, who wiped out all the hostile planning of our adversary. Some months ago at the grave of scout-machinegunner Sasun Mkrtchyan I promised on behalf of all of us that we would continue the sacred mission of Sasun and his friends, we would always keep lit the light that emanated from the new generation of Artsakh and Armenia, that had united all of us during those April days; united as a fist, ready to crush the head of the adversary that threatened our security. And we will keep our word. And this parade is a testimony to that.
Long live the citizen of the Republic of Armenia, a soil cultivator and construction worker, a physician and teacher, a miner and entrepreneur, a civil servant and artist. Glory to the citizen of Armenia, who establishes new values.
Long live the trilateral unity of Armenia-Artsakh-Diaspora: by joining our forces we are getting much stronger than one could imagine.
Long live our brothers and sisters that represent Armenia’s ethnic minorities, who enjoy equality and share responsibility in the consistent pursuit of the cause for development and defense of our country.
Long live the traditional Armenian family, which in spite of all currents remains the source of warmth that gives birth to heroes and brings up generations thirsting for knowledge.
My fellow compatriots,
I again congratulate all of us and Armenians around the globe with the quarter-century anniversary of the reestablishment of the independent Armenian statehood.
Glory to the Republic of Armenia!
Glory to the Armenian Armed Forces!
armenianweekly.com
25 Years on: Reclaiming Our True Independence
By Rupen Janbazian
September 21, 2016 in Editorials
Twenty-five years ago, Armenia declared itself independent from Soviet rule, with over 99 percent of eligible voters saying “yes” to statehood. After 70 long years, Armenia was once again a free and independent nation.
Though most believed that prosperity and bliss would come about following Armenia’s second independence, the years immediately following 1991 would prove to be bleak and disappointing. Ongoing war with neighboring Azerbaijan; devastation following the earthquake of 1988; severe economic hardship; unchecked ownership and entrepreneurship; and an illegal blockade were just a few of the countless problems the newly formed republic faced.
The people of Armenia, who had been so optimistic at the ballot boxes, were soon losing faith in the system they had so courageously fought for and, for the first time, felt a sense of disenchantment toward the idea of independence.
Twenty-five years have since passed, and unfortunately not much has changed in Armenia’s geopolitical and socioeconomic situations—a permanent peace has not been established with Azerbaijan and Armenian servicemen continue to be killed on the Nagorno-Karabagh (NKR/Artsakh) Line of Contact; hyper-privatization has paved the way for the prosperity of only a few and a large portion of the population continues to live in poverty; Armenia remains a blockaded, land-locked country, that seems to be the victim of constant bullying by greater powers.
Though these are realities our country is faced with, they are realities we must do our best to change. And by feeling a sense of belonging to Armenia, we must actively do our best to bring about real change.
Because the fact remains that this is a two-way street; Armenia needs us—Diasporan Armenians—just as much as we need Armenia.
So it is our responsibility—the responsibility of all Armenians regardless of where we live—to engage with what is happening in this country, and actively try to be a part of its development and progress. It is the duty of all Armenians—both in the homeland and in the Diaspora—to keep faith in the idea of independence and to actively try to make Armenia a true and rightful democracy.
Only then can we expect real change. Only then can we reclaim our true independence.
panarmenian.net
Serj Tankian launches new petition for civic changes, reforms in Armenia
Frontman of the rock band “System of a Down” Serj Tankian and a number of prominent Diaspora-based Armenian cultural and social figures have launched the petition Justice Within Armenia on Change.org on the 25th anniversary of Armenia ’s independence .
“We should take the opportunity to celebrate some of the successes of this small but beautiful nation while also tackling the troubling issues at hand,” Tankian said in a Facebook post.
“Independence means little when a large segment of the public are discontent. That is why myself and a group of friends have drafted a statement of support for the people of Armenia and their call to action for positive civic changes and reforms. Please have a look at the below campaign link on change.org and sign on if you agree.”
“Justice Within Armenia is a coalition of concerned Armenians around the world who believe in standing in solidarity with the people of Armenia and being present as eyewitnesses and monitoring free and fair elections while actively engaging with the Armenian populace in contributing to the present and future of our nation. We need to visualize an egalitarian state worthy of the resilience of our people and achieve it. Given our unique values and character, Armenia can and should become a country of opportunity, creativity, democracy and hope in a region rife with turmoil. The alternative is unthinkable,” the petition reads.
Among the initial signatories are Tankian, Vahe Berberian, Atom Egoyan, Arsinee Khanjian, Alexis Ohanian, Ara Oshagan, Carla Garapedian, Chris Bohjalian, Eric Bogosian, Hrant Tokhatyan, Robert Guediguian and many others.
Twenty-five years ago, Armenia declared itself independent from Soviet rule, with over 99 percent of eligible voters saying “yes” to statehood. After 70 long years, Armenia was once again a free and independent nation.
Though most believed that prosperity and bliss would come about following Armenia’s second independence, the years immediately following 1991 would prove to be bleak and disappointing. Ongoing war with neighboring Azerbaijan; devastation following the earthquake of 1988; severe economic hardship; unchecked ownership and entrepreneurship; and an illegal blockade were just a few of the countless problems the newly formed republic faced.
The people of Armenia, who had been so optimistic at the ballot boxes, were soon losing faith in the system they had so courageously fought for and, for the first time, felt a sense of disenchantment toward the idea of independence.
Twenty-five years have since passed, and unfortunately not much has changed in Armenia’s geopolitical and socioeconomic situations—a permanent peace has not been established with Azerbaijan and Armenian servicemen continue to be killed on the Nagorno-Karabagh (NKR/Artsakh) Line of Contact; hyper-privatization has paved the way for the prosperity of only a few and a large portion of the population continues to live in poverty; Armenia remains a blockaded, land-locked country, that seems to be the victim of constant bullying by greater powers.
Though these are realities our country is faced with, they are realities we must do our best to change. And by feeling a sense of belonging to Armenia, we must actively do our best to bring about real change.
Because the fact remains that this is a two-way street; Armenia needs us—Diasporan Armenians—just as much as we need Armenia.
So it is our responsibility—the responsibility of all Armenians regardless of where we live—to engage with what is happening in this country, and actively try to be a part of its development and progress. It is the duty of all Armenians—both in the homeland and in the Diaspora—to keep faith in the idea of independence and to actively try to make Armenia a true and rightful democracy.
Only then can we expect real change. Only then can we reclaim our true independence.
panarmenian.net
Serj Tankian launches new petition for civic changes, reforms in Armenia
Frontman of the rock band “System of a Down” Serj Tankian and a number of prominent Diaspora-based Armenian cultural and social figures have launched the petition Justice Within Armenia on Change.org on the 25th anniversary of Armenia ’s independence .
“We should take the opportunity to celebrate some of the successes of this small but beautiful nation while also tackling the troubling issues at hand,” Tankian said in a Facebook post.
“Independence means little when a large segment of the public are discontent. That is why myself and a group of friends have drafted a statement of support for the people of Armenia and their call to action for positive civic changes and reforms. Please have a look at the below campaign link on change.org and sign on if you agree.”
“Justice Within Armenia is a coalition of concerned Armenians around the world who believe in standing in solidarity with the people of Armenia and being present as eyewitnesses and monitoring free and fair elections while actively engaging with the Armenian populace in contributing to the present and future of our nation. We need to visualize an egalitarian state worthy of the resilience of our people and achieve it. Given our unique values and character, Armenia can and should become a country of opportunity, creativity, democracy and hope in a region rife with turmoil. The alternative is unthinkable,” the petition reads.
Among the initial signatories are Tankian, Vahe Berberian, Atom Egoyan, Arsinee Khanjian, Alexis Ohanian, Ara Oshagan, Carla Garapedian, Chris Bohjalian, Eric Bogosian, Hrant Tokhatyan, Robert Guediguian and many others.
Justice within Armenia
We, as Armenians, residing in Armenia and throughout the diaspora, are collectively committed to immediate change and justice in Armenia. In the wake of yearly protests and recent upheavals during the spring and summer of 2016 that resulted in gross violations of human and civic rights,
We say
NO to systematic corruption, monopolies, judicial inequality, police brutality, partisan politics, unequal rights, national depopulation, and elections tainted by fraud, all of which have contributed to the ongoing unrest.
We say
YES to the equality of all people, the fundamental preservation and protection of human rights, direct engagement in fair and transparent elections, respect for the rule of law, fair wages, separation of powers, a free press and advocacy for the disenfranchised. We say yes to tangible, democratic change through civic engagement with the citizenry of Armenia.
As a global community of Armenians, we would like Armenia's political leaders to embody integrity, accountability, wisdom, intelligence, diplomacy, compassion, effectiveness and visionary thinking in addressing the pressing needs of the people of Armenia, thereby securing an egalitarian, just and constructive path towards real democracy where every voice matters.
Justice Within Armenia is a coalition of concerned Armenians around the world who believe in standing in solidarity with the people of Armenia and being present as eyewitnesses and monitoring free and fair elections while actively engaging with the Armenian populace in contributing to the present and future of our nation. We need to visualize an egalitarian state worthy of the resilience of our people and achieve it. Given our unique values and character, Armenia can and should become a country of opportunity, creativity, democracy and hope in a region rife with turmoil. The alternative is unthinkable.
Initial Signatories
• Serj Tankian - USA - (Artist, Activist)
• Vahe Berberian - USA - (Artist, Writer, Actor, Director)
• Atom Egoyan - Canada - (Filmmaker, Writer, Producer)
• Arsinee Khanjian - Canada - (Actor, Director, Activist)
• Eric Nazarian - USA - (Filmmaker, Writer)
• Albert Kodagolian - USA - (Director, Cinematographer)
• Alexis Ohanian - USA - (Reddit Co-Founder)
• Antranig Kzirian - USA - (Artist and Activist)
• Ara Dabandjian – USA – (Musician, Composer)
• Ara Dinkjian - USA - (Musician, Composer)
• Ara Oshagan - USA - (Artist)
• Ariane Ascaride - France - (Actress, Screenwriter)
• Carla Garapedian - USA - (Film Maker)
• Chris Bohjalian - USA - (Author)
• David Alpay - Canada - (Actor, Musician)
• Eric Bogosian - USA - (Actor, Playwright, Novelist)
• Eric V. Hachikian - USA - (Composer)
• Hasmik Papian - Armenia - (Soprano)
• Hrant Tokhatyan - Armenia - (Actor)
• Jacky Nercessian - France - (Actor)
• Maria Armoudian - New Zealand - (Writer, Radio Host, Professor at University of Auckland)
• Nancy Kricorian – USA – (Novelist, Poet)
• Norayr Kasper – Canada – (Cinematographer, Photographer, Architect)
• R-Mean – USA - (Artist, OpenWounds1915)
• Robert Guediguian – France – (Filmmaker, Producer)
• Sebu Simonian - USA - (Musician)
• Serge Avedikian – France – (Filmmaker, Actor, Producer)
• Silvina Der Meguerditchian – Germany – (Visual Artist, Filmmaker)
• Theodore Bogosian – USA – (Director, Writer, Producer)
• Vicken Cheterian – Switzerland – (Historian, Journalist)
telegraph.co.uk
We, as Armenians, residing in Armenia and throughout the diaspora, are collectively committed to immediate change and justice in Armenia. In the wake of yearly protests and recent upheavals during the spring and summer of 2016 that resulted in gross violations of human and civic rights,
We say
NO to systematic corruption, monopolies, judicial inequality, police brutality, partisan politics, unequal rights, national depopulation, and elections tainted by fraud, all of which have contributed to the ongoing unrest.
We say
YES to the equality of all people, the fundamental preservation and protection of human rights, direct engagement in fair and transparent elections, respect for the rule of law, fair wages, separation of powers, a free press and advocacy for the disenfranchised. We say yes to tangible, democratic change through civic engagement with the citizenry of Armenia.
As a global community of Armenians, we would like Armenia's political leaders to embody integrity, accountability, wisdom, intelligence, diplomacy, compassion, effectiveness and visionary thinking in addressing the pressing needs of the people of Armenia, thereby securing an egalitarian, just and constructive path towards real democracy where every voice matters.
Justice Within Armenia is a coalition of concerned Armenians around the world who believe in standing in solidarity with the people of Armenia and being present as eyewitnesses and monitoring free and fair elections while actively engaging with the Armenian populace in contributing to the present and future of our nation. We need to visualize an egalitarian state worthy of the resilience of our people and achieve it. Given our unique values and character, Armenia can and should become a country of opportunity, creativity, democracy and hope in a region rife with turmoil. The alternative is unthinkable.
Initial Signatories
• Serj Tankian - USA - (Artist, Activist)
• Vahe Berberian - USA - (Artist, Writer, Actor, Director)
• Atom Egoyan - Canada - (Filmmaker, Writer, Producer)
• Arsinee Khanjian - Canada - (Actor, Director, Activist)
• Eric Nazarian - USA - (Filmmaker, Writer)
• Albert Kodagolian - USA - (Director, Cinematographer)
• Alexis Ohanian - USA - (Reddit Co-Founder)
• Antranig Kzirian - USA - (Artist and Activist)
• Ara Dabandjian – USA – (Musician, Composer)
• Ara Dinkjian - USA - (Musician, Composer)
• Ara Oshagan - USA - (Artist)
• Ariane Ascaride - France - (Actress, Screenwriter)
• Carla Garapedian - USA - (Film Maker)
• Chris Bohjalian - USA - (Author)
• David Alpay - Canada - (Actor, Musician)
• Eric Bogosian - USA - (Actor, Playwright, Novelist)
• Eric V. Hachikian - USA - (Composer)
• Hasmik Papian - Armenia - (Soprano)
• Hrant Tokhatyan - Armenia - (Actor)
• Jacky Nercessian - France - (Actor)
• Maria Armoudian - New Zealand - (Writer, Radio Host, Professor at University of Auckland)
• Nancy Kricorian – USA – (Novelist, Poet)
• Norayr Kasper – Canada – (Cinematographer, Photographer, Architect)
• R-Mean – USA - (Artist, OpenWounds1915)
• Robert Guediguian – France – (Filmmaker, Producer)
• Sebu Simonian - USA - (Musician)
• Serge Avedikian – France – (Filmmaker, Actor, Producer)
• Silvina Der Meguerditchian – Germany – (Visual Artist, Filmmaker)
• Theodore Bogosian – USA – (Director, Writer, Producer)
• Vicken Cheterian – Switzerland – (Historian, Journalist)
telegraph.co.uk
Travel
25 amazing things you probably didn’t know about Armenia
Armenia is a land of epic vistas, crumbling churches and
25 amazing things you probably didn’t know about Armenia
Armenia is a land of epic vistas, crumbling churches and
many surprises
21 September 2016
It’s 25 years since Armenia gained independence from the Soviet Union, and to mark the occasion Telegraph Travel has unearthed a few things you probably didn't know about the country.
21 September 2016
It’s 25 years since Armenia gained independence from the Soviet Union, and to mark the occasion Telegraph Travel has unearthed a few things you probably didn't know about the country.
1. It’s the oldest wine-producing nation in the world
At least that’s what the archaeologists claim: in 2011 they unearthed what is believed to be the world’s oldest wine production facility, which was found, of all places, in a cave in the village of Areni.
Archaeologists reckon wine has been quaffed here longer than anywhere else
At least that’s what the archaeologists claim: in 2011 they unearthed what is believed to be the world’s oldest wine production facility, which was found, of all places, in a cave in the village of Areni.
Archaeologists reckon wine has been quaffed here longer than anywhere else
2. It was the first nation to adopt Christianity…
Christianity spread to the now-defunct Kingdom of Armenia soon after the death of Jesus, though it took until the early 4th century for it to be adopted as the state religion. Still, that was earlier than any other country on the planet.
Christianity spread to the now-defunct Kingdom of Armenia soon after the death of Jesus, though it took until the early 4th century for it to be adopted as the state religion. Still, that was earlier than any other country on the planet.
3. ...And it has the churches to prove it
From millennia-old monasteries to crumbling cathedrals, Armenia is scattered with Christian places of worship: they don’t call this the “land of churches” for nothing. It’s impossible to identify the best basilica in the land, but one of our favourites is the 9th-century Tatev Monastery; a stunning building in an area of unremitting beauty.
4. Chess is part of the curriculum
From millennia-old monasteries to crumbling cathedrals, Armenia is scattered with Christian places of worship: they don’t call this the “land of churches” for nothing. It’s impossible to identify the best basilica in the land, but one of our favourites is the 9th-century Tatev Monastery; a stunning building in an area of unremitting beauty.
4. Chess is part of the curriculum
Which explains why Armenians are so good at it. Indeed, since breaking free from the Soviet Union, the country has proven itself to be a world beater at the sport : the men’s team have won the European Team Championships (1999), the World Team Championship (2011) and the Chess Olympiad (2006, 2008, 2012), while the women’s team have scooped the European Championship (2003).
5. It lost 1.5 million people in the Armenian Genocide
In 1915 the Ottoman government orchestrated the systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians, an act known as the Armenian Genocide. Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies it was genocide , but governments of 28 countries – including Britain, Russia and France – recognise the events as an act of genocide.
The Armenian Genocide memorial complex is located in Tsitsernakaberd
In 1915 the Ottoman government orchestrated the systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians, an act known as the Armenian Genocide. Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies it was genocide , but governments of 28 countries – including Britain, Russia and France – recognise the events as an act of genocide.
The Armenian Genocide memorial complex is located in Tsitsernakaberd
6. More Armenians live abroad than in Armenia
The events of 1915 forced millions of Armenians to flee abroad, where they established strong communities in the US, Russia and France. There are thought to be some 5.6 million people of Armenian descent living abroad, which is greater than the population of Armenia (3 million).
The events of 1915 forced millions of Armenians to flee abroad, where they established strong communities in the US, Russia and France. There are thought to be some 5.6 million people of Armenian descent living abroad, which is greater than the population of Armenia (3 million).
7. It has celebrity connections
Armenia is the ancestral homeland of Cher, Andre Agassi and Serj Tankian, the frontman of American metal band, System of a Down, one of the groups at the forefront of publicising the injustices of the Armenian Genocide. Armenia is also partly responsible for the Kardashians - dad Robert was second generation Armenian American.
8. Armenians think they know where Noah’s Ark is
There’s a widely-held belief in Armenia that Noah’s Ark is embedded in ice atop Mount Ararat. Despite many expeditions, said ark has never been found, but that doesn’t stop it appearing on Armenia’s coat of arms.
9. It's national symbol is in Turkey
Armenia is the ancestral homeland of Cher, Andre Agassi and Serj Tankian, the frontman of American metal band, System of a Down, one of the groups at the forefront of publicising the injustices of the Armenian Genocide. Armenia is also partly responsible for the Kardashians - dad Robert was second generation Armenian American.
8. Armenians think they know where Noah’s Ark is
There’s a widely-held belief in Armenia that Noah’s Ark is embedded in ice atop Mount Ararat. Despite many expeditions, said ark has never been found, but that doesn’t stop it appearing on Armenia’s coat of arms.
9. It's national symbol is in Turkey
Snow-capped Mount Ararat is the principal national symbol of Armenia and is considered by many Armenians to be sacred. The massif has featured prominently in Armenian art and literature and is depicted on the country’s coat of arms, however it is actually located within Turkey. It hasn’t always been that way: the holy mountain has been passed between the Kingdom of Armenia, Persia, Russia and Turkey.
10. It has one of the world’s oldest capitals…
The Armenian capital, Yerevan, is one of the world’s oldest inhabited cities, constructed as it was 29 years before Rome. Overlooked by the snow-capped Mount Ararat, the capital has a bewildering number of historic buildings, not to mention a clutch of excellent museums.
11. ...Which is known as the “Pink City”
Yerevan gets its pretty pink hue (and moniker) from the rosy volcanic rock that was used to construct many of the city’s buildings.
The Armenian capital, Yerevan, is one of the world’s oldest inhabited cities, constructed as it was 29 years before Rome. Overlooked by the snow-capped Mount Ararat, the capital has a bewildering number of historic buildings, not to mention a clutch of excellent museums.
11. ...Which is known as the “Pink City”
Yerevan gets its pretty pink hue (and moniker) from the rosy volcanic rock that was used to construct many of the city’s buildings.
12. Churchill had a taste for Armenian cognac…
During the Second World War, Joseph Stalin shipped several dozen cases of Armenian cognac to Winston Churchill, which the then-British prime minister consumed with gusto. His love for brandy was no secret: by his own estimate he had drunk enough brandy to fill three railway carriages by the time he was 71.
13. In fact Armenian cognac oiled the wheels of Yalta
During the Second World War, Joseph Stalin shipped several dozen cases of Armenian cognac to Winston Churchill, which the then-British prime minister consumed with gusto. His love for brandy was no secret: by his own estimate he had drunk enough brandy to fill three railway carriages by the time he was 71.
13. In fact Armenian cognac oiled the wheels of Yalta
The Yalta Conference – a meeting in the Crimea between Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Franklin D Roosevelt to discuss Europe’s post-war reorganisation – is believed to have been largely fuelled by Armenian cognac and wine. One of Churchill's aides at Yalta famously wrote about the then-British prime minister “drinking buckets of Caucasian champagne which would undermine the health of any ordinary man”.
14. It has a record-breaking cable car
According to Guinness World Records, the longest non-stop double track cable car is the Tatev Aerial Tramway, which clocks in at 5,752 m (18,871ft) long. The spectacular cable car connects the village of Halizor with the aforementioned Tatev Monastery, offering spectacular views across the Vorotan River Gorge en route.
Tatev Aerial Tramway is best avoided if you suffer from vertigo
According to Guinness World Records, the longest non-stop double track cable car is the Tatev Aerial Tramway, which clocks in at 5,752 m (18,871ft) long. The spectacular cable car connects the village of Halizor with the aforementioned Tatev Monastery, offering spectacular views across the Vorotan River Gorge en route.
Tatev Aerial Tramway is best avoided if you suffer from vertigo
15. It’s technically at war
Relations between Armenia and neighbouring Azerbaijan have been fraught for years and the two countries are technically still at war. The issue centres around Nagorno-Karabakh, an area of south-western Azerbaijan populated largely by ethnic Armenians. Supported by Armenia, it tried to breakaway from Azerbaijan in 1994 sparking a bloody war between the two nations. A Russian brokered ceasefire was signed in 1994, but fresh fighting broke out this year .
Relations between Armenia and neighbouring Azerbaijan have been fraught for years and the two countries are technically still at war. The issue centres around Nagorno-Karabakh, an area of south-western Azerbaijan populated largely by ethnic Armenians. Supported by Armenia, it tried to breakaway from Azerbaijan in 1994 sparking a bloody war between the two nations. A Russian brokered ceasefire was signed in 1994, but fresh fighting broke out this year .
16. You can go skiing there
The main ski resort in Armenia is Tsakhkadzor, which has some 27km of slopes, plus six lifts to get you up there. Expect to pay around 8500 Armenian dram (about £17) for a day ski pass.
17. It’s big on birds
Armenia is a twitchers delight, home as it is to 345 of Europe's estimated 530 bird species. Highlights include falcons, swans and eagles, which also feature on the Armenian coat of arms.
Storks abound in Armenia where they are considered a sacred animalI.
The main ski resort in Armenia is Tsakhkadzor, which has some 27km of slopes, plus six lifts to get you up there. Expect to pay around 8500 Armenian dram (about £17) for a day ski pass.
17. It’s big on birds
Armenia is a twitchers delight, home as it is to 345 of Europe's estimated 530 bird species. Highlights include falcons, swans and eagles, which also feature on the Armenian coat of arms.
Storks abound in Armenia where they are considered a sacred animalI.
18. The people are as hard as nails
Armenia won one gold and three silver medals at the Rio Olympics, all of which were in wrestling or weightlifting. Enough said.
Armenia won one gold and three silver medals at the Rio Olympics, all of which were in wrestling or weightlifting. Enough said.
19. They like Shakira (sort of)
Many Armenians were delighted to hear about Shakira’s stunning faux pas at a concert in neighbouring Azerbaijan, whereby the Colombian singer walked on stage carrying her national flag upside down, thus turning it into the Armenian standard. Oops.
Many Armenians were delighted to hear about Shakira’s stunning faux pas at a concert in neighbouring Azerbaijan, whereby the Colombian singer walked on stage carrying her national flag upside down, thus turning it into the Armenian standard. Oops.
20. Its bread is Unesco-listed
Dinner tables are rarely without huge piles of lavash, a tasty flat bread that is the cornerstone of Armenian cuisine. So important is this humble dish that it was placed on Unesco’s list of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2014.
21. It boasts the largest lake in the Caucasus
Dinner tables are rarely without huge piles of lavash, a tasty flat bread that is the cornerstone of Armenian cuisine. So important is this humble dish that it was placed on Unesco’s list of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2014.
21. It boasts the largest lake in the Caucasus
And what a beauty she is, too. Covering one sixth of Armenia’s territory, Lake Sevan is overlooked by the stunning Sevanavank monastic complex, which is one of the country’s top attractions.
22. Its women are the sexiest in the world
At least that’s according to a dubious poll of 44,000 US men, who voted Armenian women the world’s sexiest. The results were perhaps skewered by the ubiquity of Kim Kardashian, who famously “broke the internet” with her nude photoshoot for Paper magazine.
23. They don’t have much luck with the footy
Despite being Armenia’s national sport, football is not something it performs particularly well at – at least not on the international stage. Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union, the country has failed to qualify for either the UEFA European Football Championships or the FIFA World Cup.
24. It has three Unesco World Heritage Sites
Which are: the monasteries of Haghpat and Sanahin; the cathedral and churches of Echmiatsin and the archaeological site of Zvartnots; and the monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley.
25. There’s an Armenian alphabet monument
When the Armenian alphabet celebrated its 1,600th birthday in 2005, the authorities erected 39 stone statues depicting its letters near the final resting place of the man who created it, Mesrop Mashtots. Visitors can visit the giant letters, which stand proud in the town of Aparan.
Which are: the monasteries of Haghpat and Sanahin; the cathedral and churches of Echmiatsin and the archaeological site of Zvartnots; and the monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley.
25. There’s an Armenian alphabet monument
When the Armenian alphabet celebrated its 1,600th birthday in 2005, the authorities erected 39 stone statues depicting its letters near the final resting place of the man who created it, Mesrop Mashtots. Visitors can visit the giant letters, which stand proud in the town of Aparan.
GIRAHAYER...E-MAGAZINE
 |
read the September 2016 issue by clicking here: www.gibrahayer.com
|
| ► AYF YOUTH GATHER IN CYPRUS #Panagoum2016Cyprus. ► ARF Badanegan Panagoum in Troodos (Images and Videos). ► Homenetmen Lebanon Football Academy visits Cyprus. ► Homenetmen - AYMA announces new construction and renovation project. ► The Traitors' Club. ► Hamazkayin's SIPAN Dance Ensemble perform in Protaras. ► The Armenian Genocide through the Cypriot press 1914-1923. ► Latest issue of Artsakank Armenian-language newspaper. ► Yerkir Media to present Gibrahayer in special Diaspora program. ► The Promise. ► News in Brief. ► Gibrahayer Calendar. ► AYF Youth and Badanegan meetings begin. ► Homenetmen-AYMA Football Academy's first meeting. ► Nagorno-Karabakh: a frozen conflict - by Dr. Eleni Theocharous. ► A graffiti on Nareg school's new wall. ► Support Gibrahayer e-magazine. ► Singer Alla Levonyan in Cyprus. ► Homenetmen's 9th Mich-Tivanagan meeting to take place in Cyprus. ► Homenetmen's Scout movement has first meeting of the new season. ► Tarkmanian of Larnaca wins Bodybuilding championship. ► Artsakh is 25 years old. ► 200 join ranks of ARF Dashnakstoutiun. ► Kim bu Ermeniler by Susan Pattie. ► Hilda Paroian's new music venture. ► Gibrahayer e-magazine Facebook reaches new milestone. |
Click here for the latest updates from Armenia, Artsakh, the Diaspora and Cyprus
|
Follow us on Facebook on www.facebook.com/gibrahayer
|
Armenian News... A Topalian...New Armenian Appointed
RFE/RL Report
First Members Of New Armenian Cabinet Appointed
September 20, 2016
President Serzh Sarkisian on Tuesday appointed the first six members
of Armenia's new government which is being formed by Prime Minister
Karen Karapetian.
Four of them are new figures that have not held ministerial positions
in the past. They will run the Armenian ministries of finance, energy,
agriculture, and transport and communications.
The newly appointed Finance Minister Vartan Aramian was until now the
first deputy chief of Sarkisian's staff. He had previously worked as
deputy finance minister.
The new Agriculture Minister Ignati Arakelian, Energy Minister Ashot
Manukian and Transport and Communications Minister Vahan Martirosian
are also technocrats, having held senior executive positions in
enterprises involved in their respective new areas of responsibility.
The two members of the outgoing Armenian cabinet who retained their
posts are Deputy Prime Minister Vache Gabrielian and Davit
Harutiunian, the chief of the government staff who has a ministerial
rank. Gabrielian will also continue to serve as minister for
international economic integration and reforms.
Sarkisian has not yet named other members of Karapetian's cabinet. It
thus remains to be seen whether Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and
Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian will be re-appointed. There have been
conflicting reports about Nalbandian's and Ohanian's political future
since Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamian resigned on September 8.
Sarkisian stressed the importance of speeding up economic reforms in
Armenia when he announced his decision to replace Abrahamian by
Karapetian later on that day. The president singled out the need to
improve Armenia's business environment.
Speaking in the National Assembly on September 14, Karapetian said
that he will embark on "systemic changes" to try to improve what he
called a "very grave" economic situation in the country. The new
premier his government's key economic priority will be to put in place
"maximally favorable conditions for those who create added value."
RFE/RL Report
Government Signals New Economic Policy
September 20, 2016
Sargis Harutyunyan
Armenia needs a new "model of development" in order to successfully
address its socioeconomic problems, Deputy Prime Minister Vache
Gabrielian said on Tuesday.
Gabrielian commented on the newly appointed Prime Minister Karen
Karapetian's remark that "systemic changes" are required to improve
what he called a "very grave" economic situation in the country.
"In my view, Mr. Karapetian stressed that the previous development
resource is exhausted and new approaches, new resources are needed for
ensuring further growth," he told journalists.
Karapetian's gloomy assessment contrasted with official statistics
showing that annual economic growth in Armenia averaged 4 percent from
2010-2015 and continued into this year, despite knock-on effects of a
recession in Russia.
"It's not that there has been no economic growth," explained
Gabrielian. "It's not that [official growth] figures are not real. We
are talking about a model of development that has existed until now
and are saying that we need a new approach that will be presented by
the prime minister soon."
Gabrielian declined to elaborate on the "systemic changes" prioritized
by Karapetian. He said that the premier will detail them when he
submits his policy program to the Armenian parliament for approval
after forming his cabinet.
Only six members of the new cabinet, including Gabrielian, have been
appointed by President Serzh Sarkisian so far.
Commenting on his economic priorities on the parliament floor on
September 14, Karapetian put the emphasis on making it easier for
entrepreneurs to do business in Armenia. The former business executive
also said he is "very determined" to combat widespread tax evasion.
Karapetian mentioned the kind of reforms that have long been advocated
by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The latter have
also been urging the authorities in Yerevan to ensure fair
competition.
a1plus.am
Minister confirms that Armenia’s economy is in serious condition
(video)
Vache Gabielyan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of International
Vache Gabielyan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of International
Economic Integration and Reforms, does not deny that Armenia’s economy
is in grave situation. Commenting on the announcement of Prime Minister
Karen Karapetyan, he said, “In terms of growth prospects, when we speak
about the resources needed for development prospects, I can say that
we are in in critical condition.”
Vache Gabielyan says the newly appointed PM did not mean to say that
Vache Gabielyan says the newly appointed PM did not mean to say that
the Armenian economy suffered a “dramatic downturn” while his
predecessor [Hovik Abrahamyan] was in office.
“He simply meant that the resources have been exhausted, and new
“He simply meant that the resources have been exhausted, and new
approaches are needed,” Gabrielyan stressed. “He [Karen Karapetyan]
did not mean to say that there was no economic growth. The figures are
real. He meant to say that they have a new approach which will be
presented by the prime minister soon.”
See video at
https://youtu.be/DRmtpAWurfE
Hyperallergic
The Street Style of Armenian Women
by Claire Voon
https://youtu.be/DRmtpAWurfE
Hyperallergic
The Street Style of Armenian Women
by Claire Voon
September 19, 2016
Since 2008, the Armenia-based documentary photographer Anush Babajanyan has captured, in her words, “the brightest strangers in Armenia.” These are women she’s approached while walking the streets of Yerevan. She’s drawn to them for their bold and unique outfits that, in marrying items from different eras, seem otherworldly.
Armenian women, Babajanyan says, are “often restrained” in their dress, with many following fashion trends strictly. Given the ways her subjects blend materials and accessories, colors and patterns, it’s hard to imagine them not standing out in most settings. But Babajanyan notes that these women particularly surprise her in light of the traditionally conservative position of women in Armenian society.
Sveta_InlandishSeries_AnushBabajanyan
“These women are role models of self _expression_,” she told Hyperallergic. “Their looks symbolize a visual action against restrained, subdued behavior and feeling, which many women have when in a relationship or married to men in Armenia. The women in this series have no relation to that expectation of submissiveness — this is how their public appearance is an act of empowerment for other women.”
Inlandish originally began as a project while Babajanyan was studying at the Caucasus Media Institute. The title is a made-up word, a deviation of “outlandish.”
“So much of these women’s outer world is connected with their inner spirit, this inside-out living made me think of the word ‘Inlandish,‘” Babajanyan said. The images are classic street-style portraits, featuring individuals against backdrops that offer glimpses of Yerevan, from an entrance with peeling paint to a graffiti-covered wall to a large advertisement for Coke. After approaching the women, Babajanyan typically spends about an hour with them to learn more about their lives; she then takes their portraits, by which time most women are pose with comfort. A recap of each conversation accompanies the corresponding photograph on her website. From a politician to a painter, to a pen vendor who paints her nails to match her pens, the women touch upon their life choices; stitched together into a series, the images and stories create a community united by a strong sense of self-confidence and pride.
“In an environment that is often conservative and controlled by men, these women separate themselves by dressing differently or wearing bright makeup,” Babajanyan says. “If it is possible to be like these women choose to be in Armenia, then it is also possible for Armenian women to make many more steps towards action, work, love, and freedom in their lives.”
AB2
See images by clicking:
Since 2008, the Armenia-based documentary photographer Anush Babajanyan has captured, in her words, “the brightest strangers in Armenia.” These are women she’s approached while walking the streets of Yerevan. She’s drawn to them for their bold and unique outfits that, in marrying items from different eras, seem otherworldly.
Armenian women, Babajanyan says, are “often restrained” in their dress, with many following fashion trends strictly. Given the ways her subjects blend materials and accessories, colors and patterns, it’s hard to imagine them not standing out in most settings. But Babajanyan notes that these women particularly surprise her in light of the traditionally conservative position of women in Armenian society.
Sveta_InlandishSeries_AnushBabajanyan
“These women are role models of self _expression_,” she told Hyperallergic. “Their looks symbolize a visual action against restrained, subdued behavior and feeling, which many women have when in a relationship or married to men in Armenia. The women in this series have no relation to that expectation of submissiveness — this is how their public appearance is an act of empowerment for other women.”
Inlandish originally began as a project while Babajanyan was studying at the Caucasus Media Institute. The title is a made-up word, a deviation of “outlandish.”
“So much of these women’s outer world is connected with their inner spirit, this inside-out living made me think of the word ‘Inlandish,‘” Babajanyan said. The images are classic street-style portraits, featuring individuals against backdrops that offer glimpses of Yerevan, from an entrance with peeling paint to a graffiti-covered wall to a large advertisement for Coke. After approaching the women, Babajanyan typically spends about an hour with them to learn more about their lives; she then takes their portraits, by which time most women are pose with comfort. A recap of each conversation accompanies the corresponding photograph on her website. From a politician to a painter, to a pen vendor who paints her nails to match her pens, the women touch upon their life choices; stitched together into a series, the images and stories create a community united by a strong sense of self-confidence and pride.
“In an environment that is often conservative and controlled by men, these women separate themselves by dressing differently or wearing bright makeup,” Babajanyan says. “If it is possible to be like these women choose to be in Armenia, then it is also possible for Armenian women to make many more steps towards action, work, love, and freedom in their lives.”
AB2
See images by clicking:
http://hyperallergic.com/ 308491/the-street-style-of- armenian-women/
armradio.am
13 players from foreign clubs invited to Armenian national team
20 Sep 2016
armradio.am
13 players from foreign clubs invited to Armenian national team
20 Sep 2016
Armenian national team will play 2018 World Cup qualifyiers on
October 8 and 11 against Romania and Poland respectively.
Armenia head coach Varuzhan Sukiasyan has announced the list
Armenia head coach Varuzhan Sukiasyan has announced the list
of players from abroad invited to the training camp.
Gael Andonian, Olympique, Marseille France
Hovhannes Hambardzumyan, FK Vardar FYROM
Varazdat Haroyan, Padideh F.C., Iran
Taron Voskanyan, FC Karmiotissa, Cyprus
Levon Airapetyan, Paykan F.C., Iran
Hrayr Mkoyan, FC Esteghlal, Iran
Henrikh Mkhitaryan, FC Manchester United, England
Marcos Pizzelli, Al-Fujairah SC, UAE
Aras Ozbiliz, Besiktas J.K., Turkey
Gor Malakyan, FC Stal, Ukraine
Davit Manoyan, Karmiotissa FC, Cyprus
Tigran Barseghyan FK Vardar FYR Macedonia
Gegham Kadymyan, FC Karpaty, Ukraine
The list of players from Armenian championship and the final list of
Gael Andonian, Olympique, Marseille France
Hovhannes Hambardzumyan, FK Vardar FYROM
Varazdat Haroyan, Padideh F.C., Iran
Taron Voskanyan, FC Karmiotissa, Cyprus
Levon Airapetyan, Paykan F.C., Iran
Hrayr Mkoyan, FC Esteghlal, Iran
Henrikh Mkhitaryan, FC Manchester United, England
Marcos Pizzelli, Al-Fujairah SC, UAE
Aras Ozbiliz, Besiktas J.K., Turkey
Gor Malakyan, FC Stal, Ukraine
Davit Manoyan, Karmiotissa FC, Cyprus
Tigran Barseghyan FK Vardar FYR Macedonia
Gegham Kadymyan, FC Karpaty, Ukraine
The list of players from Armenian championship and the final list of
Armenian national team will be announced later.
REPAIR
Armeno-Turkish Platform
The Armenian Genocide: the Turkish society and state united in denial
16 September 2016 02:55
Güven Gürkan Öztan and Ömer Turan
Teachers at the University of Istanbul and Bilgi
REPAIR
Armeno-Turkish Platform
The Armenian Genocide: the Turkish society and state united in denial
16 September 2016 02:55
Güven Gürkan Öztan and Ömer Turan
Teachers at the University of Istanbul and Bilgi
Interview by Lilit Gasparyan
In the last years many books and articles have been written in Turkey about the Armenian Genocide. On the other hand there is little if any work about the genocide denial going on for a century. Güven Gürkan Öztan, lecturer at Istanbul University and Ömer Turan, lecturer at Bilgi University study the moves of the State’s apprehension on Armenian Genocide since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey until today. We interviewed Öztan and Turan on denial in Turkey. Ozkan and Turan’s book, İnkarda Ortaklaşmak (United in denial) will be published in the coming months from Iletişim Publishing. In this conversation, they explain in particular how the denial of the Armenian genocide played an important part in the building the Turkish state. That denial, they say, developed in the form of a sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit contract between the State and the Turkish society. By analyzing Turkish nationalism, they reach the conclusion that its main function is to secure the properties and wealth accumulated after various massacres. Finally, although both authors are optimistic in relation to some changes that occured in the Turkish civil society, they tone down their enthusiasm by concluding that only some significant mutation could possibly change the rules of the game. According to them, "Turkey needs to deal with Armenia and accept that the Diaspora is a legitimate party."
You work on Armenian Genocide denial in Turkey. Why did you choose this topic?
GGÖ: The denial of 1915 is in fact one of Turkey’s foundation codes. We think that during the creation of nation-state and also later, denial marked the political repertory and social consensus going beyond the Turkish identity; we think that this wasn’t one-dimensional but a multifaceted interaction, this took place in institutional terms via the restructuring of the state and this being reciprocated socially. What we actually try to find out first is why there was such a huge alliance for the denial of 1915. Why the genocide denial is so capillary? That was our starting point. Therefore we have used a series of conceptual tools including political sociology, collective memory works and also literature on nationalism. In this context, we have discovered the continuities, the main pillars carrying that denial. The works we mention here are the pre-studies of the book we are about the finish. We do a research on the centurial genocide denial. We try to have within a conceptual frame a holistic approach to the institutions, actors, opinion leaders, parliament discussions and historiography technics. We continue our studies within the partnering for denial concept. Partnering for denial tells how actors and groups from different political positions converge on a similar ground when it comes to 1915 denial.
ÖT: Our purpose is not studying what happened during the 1915 genocide. We make an effort to do the political sociology of Turkey’s actual political and social system since 1918 until today. One of our starting points for our study is that the system we live in has been structured in fact during the 1912-1922 Great War period. As a consequence of these complex relations, a partnering for denial regime had been built in Turkey.
What is the main emphasis of your work?
GGÖ: We wanted to underline for the denial issue that there are from time to time some conflicting strategies and that the main tendency is this attempting to silence and make forget policy. We mention that denial is an action in accordance with the ‘republic is a new start’ thesis but that a series of legislative regulations including derelict concerning the traces of 1915 continues to be done. The generation from the era of the foundation of the republic had some live memories with regards to the genocide. But they preferred not to talk about it. The following generations developed a political position from what has been made forgotten. As of the end of 70’s and beginning of the 80’s the official actors started to follow a systematic policy for the denial. We tried to show that a denial strategy with arguments that conflict with one another from time to time has been applied.
ÖT: On one hand we try to use a conceptual frame and we try to see how the raison d’état worked on this denial issue in different periods of history. While doing this, “Partnering for denial” is an important focus for us. On the other hand the society we live in has been shaped with the denial culture. But we also claim that this denial culture should not be analyzed with culturalist explanation. Yes, part of denial creates a culture. It determines the feeling and sensitivity of the people. But this culture generated by denial should not make us assume that denial is ahistorical, as if it existed all the time. What we try to do is to show how the denial had been built step by step with raison d’état and relations between the state and the society sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit. For that reason we concentrate an important part of our work on the Armistice era. Within that period, we include in our analysis the remembering forms concerning the 1915-1917 period. We also elaborate on how the deportation was addressed on political platforms as well as the efforts of the governments of current period to establish a partial justice. One other thing we try to say is that the raison d’état is not independent from international equations. Another important argument of ours is that partnering for denial is an important thing for raison d’état as it allows the state a certain capacity production.
So one of the things feeding the present raison d’état is the partnering for denial. Are there other things you can enumerate? How can the raison d’état continue so strong its existence?
GGÖ: At that point we should not only be satisfied to use the raison d’état conceptualization but we also need to mention the founding contract and the relation between the two. Because the founding contract isn’t something that’s done once and then removed, it is being renewed continuously and is in fact more comprehensive then Turkish nationalism. Yes, Turkish nationalism is a political position and has a link with the founding contract. But this contract is beyond taking a stand; it is in fact a series of preliminary acceptance including the state of knowing/not knowing, feeling/not feeling. It includes skepticism against the West as well as a myth of a collective sense of being oppressed that we also try to underline.
You mentioned nationalism, denial is an issue of Turkish identity, then where in this denial do you place nationalism?
GGÖ: The studies of the last twenty years criticizing Turkish nationalism inform us about the intellectual development of nationalism as well as its players but don’t tell us how this nationalist project had been adopted by people or why it has so many supporters. Working on 1915 provides some concrete information on that matter. Masses didn’t become nationalist because they followed the nationalist leaders. They embraced Turkish nationalism in order to protect the gains obtained following the massacres and slaughters.
ÖT: Here are the three fundamental characteristics of nationalism: 1) Distinction between us and them; 2) the thought structure mainly acknowledging “us” as the one being right; and 3) Threat perception. We see all of these during the reproduction process of denial. This distinction placing the “us” ,the position of being right is in fact defining Turkey’s official position. It is possible to talk of two fundamental strategies that the official thesis in Turkey has adopted. First, taking into consideration the relations between the Armenians and Muslims during the Ottoman period and say that everything was very optimistic for long years and pass off somehow the 1915-1917 period. Second is to bring often the Armenian guerillas’ revenge activities after 1918 to the fore and ignoring deportation and massacres of 1915-1917. Together with denial, they see the truth request for the year 1915 as a threat. We see the echo of Turkey’s official position in the press very clearly. When we were scanning the newspapers of the 1980’s we have noticed that 1915 commemorations in Lebanon, in Brazil were considered as a serious threat in Turkey.
As for the second matter: In fact at the end of this ten year 1912-1922 war Muslims of this geography were well aware of this when they were starting a new life: Muslims here were affected and took advantage of this deportation process. Being affected and taking advantage of it imposed them a new need about this in a new framework. They needed a legal basis, a guarantee for them to continue this state of taking advantage. The Republic was founded with the Treaty of Lausanne, by granting this guarantee. One of the things provided by the Treaty of Lausanne is the guarantee that people who left this geography wouldn’t come back. Denying was a way of not loosing the gains.
Do the Kemalists and members of AKP use the raison d’état the same way? What are the similarities or differences?
GGÖ: There are two important points. First, does AKP’s criticizing position against Republic’s founding ideology include 1915 or other massacres and slaughters of the Early Republic years. That’s the starting point, because since the first days of AKP’s ruling there has been a criticism of Unionism and early Republic that went through different phases. This has its place in Milli Görüş, National Vision Movement’s tradition. In addition to that AKP made such a move in order to get the support of liberals that had a criticizing approach to the great sins of that period. Therefore, there was a ‘much more optimistic’ situation for the place of 1915 in these calculations as this settling accounts issue seemed to include 1915 too. But then it came out that what they really wanted to do for the process they didn’t do it through recognition-confrontation, it was a continuation of a strategy, main part line of the state’s strategy, they tried to implement since 2001, in other words since the triple coalition period. The official denial kept its permanence in many areas such as archive issues, historians committee, using of international balance of power. There is a shift from unionism hostility to “our civilization won’t commit a genocide” line.
ÖT: AKP has a problem since 2002 with the nation-state project. Furthermore, AKP has a problem with unionism… We are talking of an organism that sees itself identical with the movement Unionists suppressed. In 2000’s the atmosphere created by AKP’s ruling contributed to the widening of fractures of partnering for denial regime in Turkey. There are many examples to it. One of the most obvious is the conference organized in 2005 at Bilgi University. What we call the raison d’état is not singular it can be used by different players in many different ways. AKP acted with the perspective of democratization and improvement of relations with the EU and we should acknowledge the difference it made. We need to emphasize the condolence messages published in 2014 and 2015. These are steps that are outside of classical raison d’état framework in Turkey and for the first time Turkish Republic declared it is actually legitimate to have an official commemoration for those who lost their lives during the deportation.
On the other hand, we see that during AKP ruling, the raison d’état didn’t get rid of its classical reflexes. Here also we have many examples. The most important one is Hrant Dink’s assassination. As the followers of this murder case, we came into knowledge of some information step by step but where we are today, the most critical information we know is that while Dink was shut, there were six gendarmerie intelligence officers around the gunman. The intelligence services in Turkey had always seen Islamized Armenians as a threat and monitored them. We see a huge change as for the expression style about 1915-1917. Agos has a big influence on that but it’s obvious that Agos’ influence had cost a lot. With its distance to nation-state AKP, ideologically lies its back to civilization apprehension. Within the scope of the apprehension AKP leader can from time to time say “Our civilization doesn’t commit a genocide”. Or they can embrace the “genocide equals holocaust” discourse. But of course these don’t have any convincing power.
You see the condolence messages, the “common pain”, “fair memory” notions mentioned by Davutoğlu as the elements of raison d’état. These fit with creation and dissemination of a new language, which are the last of the four elements creating the raison d’état you mention in your studies. Is it possible to say that AKP continues the same denying raison d’état in a different language.
GGÖ: There is a serious continuity as for the raison d’état. What’s important here is that the sustainability characteristic of classical denial discourse had lost of its capacity as of the year 2000. This has to do with Turkey’s internal dynamics and foreign policy balance but the criticizing studies in the academic literature has also an impact. There are new researches shaking in academic terms Turkish scholars works. So if there were another player instead of AKP, it would be impossible for that player to continue with the denying arguments known up to now. That’s why the strategy of not acknowledging 1915’s genocide has continued through some nice sounding concepts like ‘fair memory’, ‘common pain’. For the last five-six years they put forward denying arguments with a different aspect than the past during this process of creating a new language. The oppressed nation narrative is in its place and they continue this through Islam but not Turkishness anymore.
ÖT: The 2015’s condolence message was much more stronger than the 2014 one’s content wise. But we notice that the dual discourse is in here. Erdogan made a very unfortunate sentence. He said for the commemoration event in Yerevan “they are dancing to their own tunes”. This year Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım qualified this tragedy as ‘an ordinary event’. That is exactly what we try to tell in the book. The sentence ‘an ordinary event’ is the reflection of the partnering for denial because saying this is equal to what a man of letters saying ‘We haven’t slaughtered Armenians out of the blue’.
Of course we need to look at what state officials’ said for the conflicts that resumed in 2015. In this new fire consuming Turkey, the word Armenian used by gendarmerie special operation and police special operation officials using with regards to Armenians is defamation. These officials made announcements such as “Armenian Bastards” in cities where Kurdish people live, they wrote those defamatory expressions on city walls. They see Armenians as a category they can criminalize and according to them anybody revolting against the state is linked to Armenians.
GGO: When you look at Turkey’s recent history, you can notice that Armenians and other non-Muslims have been used as a sort of hostage on international political arena. We see this a lot for the Turkish Greeks concerning the Cyprus issue. But for 1915 matter the state has policies requiring continuity. One of it is to try to tell how Armenians in Turkey live happily. The other one is to make a distinction between the “good and bad Armenian”. Trying to collect people from Armenian Community that could support the official thesis… And the final one is the threat; the official sources say, “stop giving us a hard time or we’ll send away the Armenians in Turkey’.
ÖT: There is also a language game used here as they are deliberately ambiguous on who they will deport, Armenia citizens or Turkish Armenians.
Alongside the continuity there is also this method of creating doubt. This method makes the encountered events during the genocide period as ambiguous and suggests discussing ambiguous things… According to you why this method didn’t last long and why did they opt for other methods? How successful was it in terms of denial?
ÖT: One of the important tactics was to use the “that cannot be known, archives are closed, let us first open the archives” discourse. What Turkey’s official attitude doesn’t want to see here is the following: Most of the things that need to be known are already known and there won’t be anymore things that could change the internationally acknowledged frame’s main lines. But let us underline this: Not all action of state’s intelligence create the desired result. According to that tactic, Turkey had opened its Ottoman archive to users from all countries. The important pieces of criticizing literature on that matter are based on the Ottoman archives.
In one of your interviews you say “denial had been solved at the least on April 24, 2015”. What exactly do you mean by that?
ÖT: We are a generation born in a very conservative denial environment. But at where we are today there are many Turkish books on this matter, many meetings are being organized. And not only in Istanbul, for example within the framework of Kurdish movement’s sensitivity to the matter, the municipality of Bitlis and Diyarbakır can host these kinds of meetings. This subject is not anymore that unspoken. For instance in April 24, 2015 Cumhuriyet newspaper headline was in Armenian. In fact that’s what I mean when I mention the fracture in the partnering for denial. But we shouldn’t exaggerate all of this…
GGÖ: Turkish society’s confrontation report card is not a good one, this is due to the very pragmatic, anxious and functional look at the events. For many people confrontation with history is a package that comes on the table with its costs. Therefore, behind this ‘it’s been a century ago, why are we still talking about it’ attitude there is this fear of paying the price. Breaking with the past is both a glue keeping together people from different political backgrounds and a shield protecting the slippery self-esteem from wearing off. Whereas the state of not settling accounts is on top of things causing the social conscience corrosion. But of course we should not forget that no confrontation practice was done automatically, settling accounts took place when a historical momentum where internal and external dynamics partnered arose. The main reason why this is delayed in Turkey is that these two momentums cannot function simultaneously. Genocide decisions of the parliaments cannot mobilize such a dynamic as the internal dynamic is on the opposite direction. That is why a new and efficient confrontation process beyond the reactionary position doesn’t start.
How can raison d’état change in Turkey, by itself, with internal social dynamics or with international pressure? What do you foresee?
ÖT: It can change with different elements coming together. The analysis we try to develop here sort of aims to analyze without differentiating internal and external dynamics. Therefore if there is going to be a change in Turkey it is not going to be only with international conjuncture, nor independent from external dynamics. If there is going to be a change, it will for sure be possible with Turkey’s political structure reaching a more democratic level. In terms of authoritativeness we face the darkest days of AKP ruling. It is of course easier to talk about the collective violent events or traumas of the past in an environment more democratic where rule of law principle has farther reel responses. This is valid for Dersim, for September 6 and for Armenian Genocide. Turkey’s state of intelligence transformation will happen with general democratization.
GGÖ: Confrontation with 1915 genocide, commemoration and the players that come together of that… There was a situation close to that between 2012-2015; if there is going to be a confrontation this will be possible with the inclusion and accounting of those who define themselves with Muslim identity. We can only obtain a solution if they are part of this process.
First of all we need to eliminate things preventing confrontation. We need to create a new language that could be associated with the oppressed and victims of this process and not with the perpetrators. Even if this cannot be done in short-term period, there is an effort to do so. Different actors within the Turkish society have such a quest. But let us remember, we are talking of a society staying silent nowadays when other massacres are taking place.
Within that context, what will be the impact of the decisions taken by Germany and Australia? What is the significance of these decisions?
GGÖ: The subconscious of the official narrative in Turkey has this tendency to blame someone else. For instance, saying that massacres were not organized by the state, that it was something done by local actors and accuse regional actors and especially Kurdish people. Regional actors had of course to do with it but this is only one side of the picture. There is also this tendency to accuse Germans, the ally during the First World War. Therefore Kurds’ and Germans’ critical reaction on this matter make more impact. The law that is passed in Germany, compared to other similar texts put the official denying position in Turkey into a more difficult situation. First of all when Germans qualified 1915 as genocide they didn’t deny the uniqueness of Holocaust. Including in the text the uniqueness of Holocaust was an important approach because Turkey had always proceeded with this thesis. Second important point is the fact that Germans had accepted its complicity on this matter although in soft wording and show Unionists as the main perpetrator. These elements made the text even stronger. If some of the actors among the Turkish public opinion reacting to the law would have read the text it is probable they have question marks with regards to the official position.
ÖT: I believe that the effort of the diaspora to bring up the issue on different countries’ parliaments has an impact internationally. This is not an easy tool as it is a tool that can be used when real politic coincides with the idealist side of international relations. It might be problematic to position external actors as referee but it’s an efficient tool to bring it up to the agenda. The law adopted by Germany has another important aspect: In terms of real politic, Germany has taken such a decision at a time when she needed cooperation with Turkey to solve the refugee crisis in Europe. And all parties supported that decision. The text is not similar to the two paragraph texts of American presidents. It is a very comprehensive without ignoring various sensibilities of Turkish public opinion.
Turkish press wrote a lot about the law after its adoption. Let us do a comparison. For example we go back to the 90’s as for the Kurdish issue. Can we say the same for the Armenian issue? This issue is part of the agenda only when needed. The last time the issue was evoked was April 24, 2015…
ÖT: It is an important question, in fact when general democracy level deteriorates, talking about 1915 has its share. But I am also for not underestimating the impact the 2000’s created. Until mid 90’s Turkey’s official historians had the monopole for this subject and they would express themselves within that monopole. They didn’t have a strong voice against them. The opposite voice was raised in politics, these non-academician people would write about history. But now we have critical historians working very hard on this subject. The developments in the literature and its reflection on the public opinion identified many things. The publishing especially of Talat Paşa’s Dead-Letter provided us a picture that was opposite to the one’s told by official history with regards to the dead toll of this tragedy. In 90’s conjuncture it wasn’t that easy to have a 24 April commemoration in different parts of Istanbul.
GGÖ: When we talk of the return issue, we need to make a distinction between the actors. The main argument for criminalizing the issue in the 80’s was the existence of ASALA. Then the state continued to criminalize Armenians through ASALA-PKK continuity thesis. Currently there is a tendency to hold responsible in a political context and therefore although it is an official discourse looking to old habits, they cannot criminalize that fast and get the support they want from the society. That’s important. Armenian diaspora, Armenia and Armenians in Turkey should think about it on a political line. An important job is done and the denial wall is cracked now. But we should not exaggerate just because we have what we didn’t have in the 80’s as what we have now are not as strong to demolish the denial wall. When it comes to 1915, the situation in Turkey is very serious because 1915 means confronting a century long process and that’s not easy job. We should not be that optimistic. If we have moved one step higher it’s because we have majorly paid the price for it.
What will be the next stop for the denial? Are there any more bullets left to use?
GGÖ: According to me there aren’t any more tactics to invent or a capacity to implement it. All tactics and methods have been used. Only if there were a huge upside down effect then a different play can be set. But for the developments to be more sincere Turkey needs to consider Armenia as first interlocutor. Only then one can start a new level. Within the framework of 1915 it is important to gather with a political agenda…
In the last years many books and articles have been written in Turkey about the Armenian Genocide. On the other hand there is little if any work about the genocide denial going on for a century. Güven Gürkan Öztan, lecturer at Istanbul University and Ömer Turan, lecturer at Bilgi University study the moves of the State’s apprehension on Armenian Genocide since the foundation of the Republic of Turkey until today. We interviewed Öztan and Turan on denial in Turkey. Ozkan and Turan’s book, İnkarda Ortaklaşmak (United in denial) will be published in the coming months from Iletişim Publishing. In this conversation, they explain in particular how the denial of the Armenian genocide played an important part in the building the Turkish state. That denial, they say, developed in the form of a sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit contract between the State and the Turkish society. By analyzing Turkish nationalism, they reach the conclusion that its main function is to secure the properties and wealth accumulated after various massacres. Finally, although both authors are optimistic in relation to some changes that occured in the Turkish civil society, they tone down their enthusiasm by concluding that only some significant mutation could possibly change the rules of the game. According to them, "Turkey needs to deal with Armenia and accept that the Diaspora is a legitimate party."
You work on Armenian Genocide denial in Turkey. Why did you choose this topic?
GGÖ: The denial of 1915 is in fact one of Turkey’s foundation codes. We think that during the creation of nation-state and also later, denial marked the political repertory and social consensus going beyond the Turkish identity; we think that this wasn’t one-dimensional but a multifaceted interaction, this took place in institutional terms via the restructuring of the state and this being reciprocated socially. What we actually try to find out first is why there was such a huge alliance for the denial of 1915. Why the genocide denial is so capillary? That was our starting point. Therefore we have used a series of conceptual tools including political sociology, collective memory works and also literature on nationalism. In this context, we have discovered the continuities, the main pillars carrying that denial. The works we mention here are the pre-studies of the book we are about the finish. We do a research on the centurial genocide denial. We try to have within a conceptual frame a holistic approach to the institutions, actors, opinion leaders, parliament discussions and historiography technics. We continue our studies within the partnering for denial concept. Partnering for denial tells how actors and groups from different political positions converge on a similar ground when it comes to 1915 denial.
ÖT: Our purpose is not studying what happened during the 1915 genocide. We make an effort to do the political sociology of Turkey’s actual political and social system since 1918 until today. One of our starting points for our study is that the system we live in has been structured in fact during the 1912-1922 Great War period. As a consequence of these complex relations, a partnering for denial regime had been built in Turkey.
What is the main emphasis of your work?
GGÖ: We wanted to underline for the denial issue that there are from time to time some conflicting strategies and that the main tendency is this attempting to silence and make forget policy. We mention that denial is an action in accordance with the ‘republic is a new start’ thesis but that a series of legislative regulations including derelict concerning the traces of 1915 continues to be done. The generation from the era of the foundation of the republic had some live memories with regards to the genocide. But they preferred not to talk about it. The following generations developed a political position from what has been made forgotten. As of the end of 70’s and beginning of the 80’s the official actors started to follow a systematic policy for the denial. We tried to show that a denial strategy with arguments that conflict with one another from time to time has been applied.
ÖT: On one hand we try to use a conceptual frame and we try to see how the raison d’état worked on this denial issue in different periods of history. While doing this, “Partnering for denial” is an important focus for us. On the other hand the society we live in has been shaped with the denial culture. But we also claim that this denial culture should not be analyzed with culturalist explanation. Yes, part of denial creates a culture. It determines the feeling and sensitivity of the people. But this culture generated by denial should not make us assume that denial is ahistorical, as if it existed all the time. What we try to do is to show how the denial had been built step by step with raison d’état and relations between the state and the society sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit. For that reason we concentrate an important part of our work on the Armistice era. Within that period, we include in our analysis the remembering forms concerning the 1915-1917 period. We also elaborate on how the deportation was addressed on political platforms as well as the efforts of the governments of current period to establish a partial justice. One other thing we try to say is that the raison d’état is not independent from international equations. Another important argument of ours is that partnering for denial is an important thing for raison d’état as it allows the state a certain capacity production.
So one of the things feeding the present raison d’état is the partnering for denial. Are there other things you can enumerate? How can the raison d’état continue so strong its existence?
GGÖ: At that point we should not only be satisfied to use the raison d’état conceptualization but we also need to mention the founding contract and the relation between the two. Because the founding contract isn’t something that’s done once and then removed, it is being renewed continuously and is in fact more comprehensive then Turkish nationalism. Yes, Turkish nationalism is a political position and has a link with the founding contract. But this contract is beyond taking a stand; it is in fact a series of preliminary acceptance including the state of knowing/not knowing, feeling/not feeling. It includes skepticism against the West as well as a myth of a collective sense of being oppressed that we also try to underline.
You mentioned nationalism, denial is an issue of Turkish identity, then where in this denial do you place nationalism?
GGÖ: The studies of the last twenty years criticizing Turkish nationalism inform us about the intellectual development of nationalism as well as its players but don’t tell us how this nationalist project had been adopted by people or why it has so many supporters. Working on 1915 provides some concrete information on that matter. Masses didn’t become nationalist because they followed the nationalist leaders. They embraced Turkish nationalism in order to protect the gains obtained following the massacres and slaughters.
ÖT: Here are the three fundamental characteristics of nationalism: 1) Distinction between us and them; 2) the thought structure mainly acknowledging “us” as the one being right; and 3) Threat perception. We see all of these during the reproduction process of denial. This distinction placing the “us” ,the position of being right is in fact defining Turkey’s official position. It is possible to talk of two fundamental strategies that the official thesis in Turkey has adopted. First, taking into consideration the relations between the Armenians and Muslims during the Ottoman period and say that everything was very optimistic for long years and pass off somehow the 1915-1917 period. Second is to bring often the Armenian guerillas’ revenge activities after 1918 to the fore and ignoring deportation and massacres of 1915-1917. Together with denial, they see the truth request for the year 1915 as a threat. We see the echo of Turkey’s official position in the press very clearly. When we were scanning the newspapers of the 1980’s we have noticed that 1915 commemorations in Lebanon, in Brazil were considered as a serious threat in Turkey.
As for the second matter: In fact at the end of this ten year 1912-1922 war Muslims of this geography were well aware of this when they were starting a new life: Muslims here were affected and took advantage of this deportation process. Being affected and taking advantage of it imposed them a new need about this in a new framework. They needed a legal basis, a guarantee for them to continue this state of taking advantage. The Republic was founded with the Treaty of Lausanne, by granting this guarantee. One of the things provided by the Treaty of Lausanne is the guarantee that people who left this geography wouldn’t come back. Denying was a way of not loosing the gains.
Do the Kemalists and members of AKP use the raison d’état the same way? What are the similarities or differences?
GGÖ: There are two important points. First, does AKP’s criticizing position against Republic’s founding ideology include 1915 or other massacres and slaughters of the Early Republic years. That’s the starting point, because since the first days of AKP’s ruling there has been a criticism of Unionism and early Republic that went through different phases. This has its place in Milli Görüş, National Vision Movement’s tradition. In addition to that AKP made such a move in order to get the support of liberals that had a criticizing approach to the great sins of that period. Therefore, there was a ‘much more optimistic’ situation for the place of 1915 in these calculations as this settling accounts issue seemed to include 1915 too. But then it came out that what they really wanted to do for the process they didn’t do it through recognition-confrontation, it was a continuation of a strategy, main part line of the state’s strategy, they tried to implement since 2001, in other words since the triple coalition period. The official denial kept its permanence in many areas such as archive issues, historians committee, using of international balance of power. There is a shift from unionism hostility to “our civilization won’t commit a genocide” line.
ÖT: AKP has a problem since 2002 with the nation-state project. Furthermore, AKP has a problem with unionism… We are talking of an organism that sees itself identical with the movement Unionists suppressed. In 2000’s the atmosphere created by AKP’s ruling contributed to the widening of fractures of partnering for denial regime in Turkey. There are many examples to it. One of the most obvious is the conference organized in 2005 at Bilgi University. What we call the raison d’état is not singular it can be used by different players in many different ways. AKP acted with the perspective of democratization and improvement of relations with the EU and we should acknowledge the difference it made. We need to emphasize the condolence messages published in 2014 and 2015. These are steps that are outside of classical raison d’état framework in Turkey and for the first time Turkish Republic declared it is actually legitimate to have an official commemoration for those who lost their lives during the deportation.
On the other hand, we see that during AKP ruling, the raison d’état didn’t get rid of its classical reflexes. Here also we have many examples. The most important one is Hrant Dink’s assassination. As the followers of this murder case, we came into knowledge of some information step by step but where we are today, the most critical information we know is that while Dink was shut, there were six gendarmerie intelligence officers around the gunman. The intelligence services in Turkey had always seen Islamized Armenians as a threat and monitored them. We see a huge change as for the expression style about 1915-1917. Agos has a big influence on that but it’s obvious that Agos’ influence had cost a lot. With its distance to nation-state AKP, ideologically lies its back to civilization apprehension. Within the scope of the apprehension AKP leader can from time to time say “Our civilization doesn’t commit a genocide”. Or they can embrace the “genocide equals holocaust” discourse. But of course these don’t have any convincing power.
You see the condolence messages, the “common pain”, “fair memory” notions mentioned by Davutoğlu as the elements of raison d’état. These fit with creation and dissemination of a new language, which are the last of the four elements creating the raison d’état you mention in your studies. Is it possible to say that AKP continues the same denying raison d’état in a different language.
GGÖ: There is a serious continuity as for the raison d’état. What’s important here is that the sustainability characteristic of classical denial discourse had lost of its capacity as of the year 2000. This has to do with Turkey’s internal dynamics and foreign policy balance but the criticizing studies in the academic literature has also an impact. There are new researches shaking in academic terms Turkish scholars works. So if there were another player instead of AKP, it would be impossible for that player to continue with the denying arguments known up to now. That’s why the strategy of not acknowledging 1915’s genocide has continued through some nice sounding concepts like ‘fair memory’, ‘common pain’. For the last five-six years they put forward denying arguments with a different aspect than the past during this process of creating a new language. The oppressed nation narrative is in its place and they continue this through Islam but not Turkishness anymore.
ÖT: The 2015’s condolence message was much more stronger than the 2014 one’s content wise. But we notice that the dual discourse is in here. Erdogan made a very unfortunate sentence. He said for the commemoration event in Yerevan “they are dancing to their own tunes”. This year Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım qualified this tragedy as ‘an ordinary event’. That is exactly what we try to tell in the book. The sentence ‘an ordinary event’ is the reflection of the partnering for denial because saying this is equal to what a man of letters saying ‘We haven’t slaughtered Armenians out of the blue’.
Of course we need to look at what state officials’ said for the conflicts that resumed in 2015. In this new fire consuming Turkey, the word Armenian used by gendarmerie special operation and police special operation officials using with regards to Armenians is defamation. These officials made announcements such as “Armenian Bastards” in cities where Kurdish people live, they wrote those defamatory expressions on city walls. They see Armenians as a category they can criminalize and according to them anybody revolting against the state is linked to Armenians.
GGO: When you look at Turkey’s recent history, you can notice that Armenians and other non-Muslims have been used as a sort of hostage on international political arena. We see this a lot for the Turkish Greeks concerning the Cyprus issue. But for 1915 matter the state has policies requiring continuity. One of it is to try to tell how Armenians in Turkey live happily. The other one is to make a distinction between the “good and bad Armenian”. Trying to collect people from Armenian Community that could support the official thesis… And the final one is the threat; the official sources say, “stop giving us a hard time or we’ll send away the Armenians in Turkey’.
ÖT: There is also a language game used here as they are deliberately ambiguous on who they will deport, Armenia citizens or Turkish Armenians.
Alongside the continuity there is also this method of creating doubt. This method makes the encountered events during the genocide period as ambiguous and suggests discussing ambiguous things… According to you why this method didn’t last long and why did they opt for other methods? How successful was it in terms of denial?
ÖT: One of the important tactics was to use the “that cannot be known, archives are closed, let us first open the archives” discourse. What Turkey’s official attitude doesn’t want to see here is the following: Most of the things that need to be known are already known and there won’t be anymore things that could change the internationally acknowledged frame’s main lines. But let us underline this: Not all action of state’s intelligence create the desired result. According to that tactic, Turkey had opened its Ottoman archive to users from all countries. The important pieces of criticizing literature on that matter are based on the Ottoman archives.
In one of your interviews you say “denial had been solved at the least on April 24, 2015”. What exactly do you mean by that?
ÖT: We are a generation born in a very conservative denial environment. But at where we are today there are many Turkish books on this matter, many meetings are being organized. And not only in Istanbul, for example within the framework of Kurdish movement’s sensitivity to the matter, the municipality of Bitlis and Diyarbakır can host these kinds of meetings. This subject is not anymore that unspoken. For instance in April 24, 2015 Cumhuriyet newspaper headline was in Armenian. In fact that’s what I mean when I mention the fracture in the partnering for denial. But we shouldn’t exaggerate all of this…
GGÖ: Turkish society’s confrontation report card is not a good one, this is due to the very pragmatic, anxious and functional look at the events. For many people confrontation with history is a package that comes on the table with its costs. Therefore, behind this ‘it’s been a century ago, why are we still talking about it’ attitude there is this fear of paying the price. Breaking with the past is both a glue keeping together people from different political backgrounds and a shield protecting the slippery self-esteem from wearing off. Whereas the state of not settling accounts is on top of things causing the social conscience corrosion. But of course we should not forget that no confrontation practice was done automatically, settling accounts took place when a historical momentum where internal and external dynamics partnered arose. The main reason why this is delayed in Turkey is that these two momentums cannot function simultaneously. Genocide decisions of the parliaments cannot mobilize such a dynamic as the internal dynamic is on the opposite direction. That is why a new and efficient confrontation process beyond the reactionary position doesn’t start.
How can raison d’état change in Turkey, by itself, with internal social dynamics or with international pressure? What do you foresee?
ÖT: It can change with different elements coming together. The analysis we try to develop here sort of aims to analyze without differentiating internal and external dynamics. Therefore if there is going to be a change in Turkey it is not going to be only with international conjuncture, nor independent from external dynamics. If there is going to be a change, it will for sure be possible with Turkey’s political structure reaching a more democratic level. In terms of authoritativeness we face the darkest days of AKP ruling. It is of course easier to talk about the collective violent events or traumas of the past in an environment more democratic where rule of law principle has farther reel responses. This is valid for Dersim, for September 6 and for Armenian Genocide. Turkey’s state of intelligence transformation will happen with general democratization.
GGÖ: Confrontation with 1915 genocide, commemoration and the players that come together of that… There was a situation close to that between 2012-2015; if there is going to be a confrontation this will be possible with the inclusion and accounting of those who define themselves with Muslim identity. We can only obtain a solution if they are part of this process.
First of all we need to eliminate things preventing confrontation. We need to create a new language that could be associated with the oppressed and victims of this process and not with the perpetrators. Even if this cannot be done in short-term period, there is an effort to do so. Different actors within the Turkish society have such a quest. But let us remember, we are talking of a society staying silent nowadays when other massacres are taking place.
Within that context, what will be the impact of the decisions taken by Germany and Australia? What is the significance of these decisions?
GGÖ: The subconscious of the official narrative in Turkey has this tendency to blame someone else. For instance, saying that massacres were not organized by the state, that it was something done by local actors and accuse regional actors and especially Kurdish people. Regional actors had of course to do with it but this is only one side of the picture. There is also this tendency to accuse Germans, the ally during the First World War. Therefore Kurds’ and Germans’ critical reaction on this matter make more impact. The law that is passed in Germany, compared to other similar texts put the official denying position in Turkey into a more difficult situation. First of all when Germans qualified 1915 as genocide they didn’t deny the uniqueness of Holocaust. Including in the text the uniqueness of Holocaust was an important approach because Turkey had always proceeded with this thesis. Second important point is the fact that Germans had accepted its complicity on this matter although in soft wording and show Unionists as the main perpetrator. These elements made the text even stronger. If some of the actors among the Turkish public opinion reacting to the law would have read the text it is probable they have question marks with regards to the official position.
ÖT: I believe that the effort of the diaspora to bring up the issue on different countries’ parliaments has an impact internationally. This is not an easy tool as it is a tool that can be used when real politic coincides with the idealist side of international relations. It might be problematic to position external actors as referee but it’s an efficient tool to bring it up to the agenda. The law adopted by Germany has another important aspect: In terms of real politic, Germany has taken such a decision at a time when she needed cooperation with Turkey to solve the refugee crisis in Europe. And all parties supported that decision. The text is not similar to the two paragraph texts of American presidents. It is a very comprehensive without ignoring various sensibilities of Turkish public opinion.
Turkish press wrote a lot about the law after its adoption. Let us do a comparison. For example we go back to the 90’s as for the Kurdish issue. Can we say the same for the Armenian issue? This issue is part of the agenda only when needed. The last time the issue was evoked was April 24, 2015…
ÖT: It is an important question, in fact when general democracy level deteriorates, talking about 1915 has its share. But I am also for not underestimating the impact the 2000’s created. Until mid 90’s Turkey’s official historians had the monopole for this subject and they would express themselves within that monopole. They didn’t have a strong voice against them. The opposite voice was raised in politics, these non-academician people would write about history. But now we have critical historians working very hard on this subject. The developments in the literature and its reflection on the public opinion identified many things. The publishing especially of Talat Paşa’s Dead-Letter provided us a picture that was opposite to the one’s told by official history with regards to the dead toll of this tragedy. In 90’s conjuncture it wasn’t that easy to have a 24 April commemoration in different parts of Istanbul.
GGÖ: When we talk of the return issue, we need to make a distinction between the actors. The main argument for criminalizing the issue in the 80’s was the existence of ASALA. Then the state continued to criminalize Armenians through ASALA-PKK continuity thesis. Currently there is a tendency to hold responsible in a political context and therefore although it is an official discourse looking to old habits, they cannot criminalize that fast and get the support they want from the society. That’s important. Armenian diaspora, Armenia and Armenians in Turkey should think about it on a political line. An important job is done and the denial wall is cracked now. But we should not exaggerate just because we have what we didn’t have in the 80’s as what we have now are not as strong to demolish the denial wall. When it comes to 1915, the situation in Turkey is very serious because 1915 means confronting a century long process and that’s not easy job. We should not be that optimistic. If we have moved one step higher it’s because we have majorly paid the price for it.
What will be the next stop for the denial? Are there any more bullets left to use?
GGÖ: According to me there aren’t any more tactics to invent or a capacity to implement it. All tactics and methods have been used. Only if there were a huge upside down effect then a different play can be set. But for the developments to be more sincere Turkey needs to consider Armenia as first interlocutor. Only then one can start a new level. Within the framework of 1915 it is important to gather with a political agenda…
ÖT: There won’t be a change on short-term period, it will continue like that. In the current conjuncture Turkey is not that trapped… Yes Turkey needs to deal with Armenia and accept that the diaspora is a legitimate party. The diaspora exists because of the 1915-1917 deportations and massacres.
There is a diaspora politics reality…
ÖT: When Turkey will give up instrumentalizing dialogues on the issue some things might change. When targets are not too big then dialogue is a positive mechanism.
What does it mean that the fact that you can write such articles, you can talk and academicians like yourselves exist?
GGÖ: Turkey is a difficult country in terms of liberties. It is especially very risky to produce academically on subjects that are considered as taboo. But there is a new generation thinking that it’s their academic duty to do researches outside the official narrative in accordance with the academic principles and they are ready to pay the price for it. This generation lives on anterior pioneer works and tries to go beyond it. Nowadays despite all the pressures, the existence of academicians continuing to work on subjects considered taboo is very important in terms of confrontation with history. These works can go beyond the academic walls only with the help of civil society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
