What is the Armenian for “Genocide”?
By Anoosh Chakelian
(Published in The Oxford Student – 15 January 2009 – Volume52 Issue 1)
Last term, I was surprised to hear a Turkish student, who had been invited by a
friend to visit our college, deny the Armenian genocide on the basis that there
is not enough historical evidence for it. Being half-Armenian and conveniently
close to a bowl of fruit, my initial reaction was to hurl an orange at the
student in question. Instead, I am writing this article in an attempt to
explain and interpret the facts of this topic.
The systematic annihilation of one and a half million people is not an event that should go unnoticed. The removal of 70% of a race from their homeland should be listed as one of the worst tragedies history has seen. Yet history has drawn a veil over this particular issue, shrouding it in an ambiguous tangle of historical argument and political controversy. The prolonged attack of the Ottoman Turks on the small, Christian country of Armenia during the period of 1915-1923 is to this day denied by the Turkish government, shifting the event from the tragedy that it was to a mere historical debate.
The evidence that exists from this period suggests four separate stages to the Armenian genocide. The first stage took place on April 24th 1915, when 250 Armenian intellectuals were taken in and killed by the Ottoman authorities. This took away any cultural, intellectual leadership from the Armenians. It also removed their means of communication with the outside world. This date is commemorative for Armenians world-wide, and there is a march held annually on this day in London from the Armenian Church in Kensington to the Turkish embassy as a remembrance of the victims, but also to voice anger at the denial of the Turkish government.
The world was distracted by the First World War in this period allowed the Ottoman preparations for genocide to go unnoticed. The second stage of genocide can be identified by the conscription of around 300,000 Armenian males to the Ottoman Turkish army. They were then disarmed and killed. Even before the intended programme of ethnic cleansing had begun, the cruelty of the Ottoman authorities cannot be denied. The third stage is often known as the “completive period”, which characterised the genocide. One and a half million people were removed from Armenia and killed during this period; through death marches across the Syrian Desert, starvation and dehydration of the people being deported (the term “deportation” was used by the Ottomans in documents as a substitute for the words “massacre” or “annihilation”), and primitive methods of gassing victims.
This was all part of the Ottoman policy of “Turkification”, a process that aimed to cleanse the Ottoman Empire of unwanted ethnic, non-Turkish elements. Armenia was a prime target, due to its strong national and Christian identity. Contemporary Armenian historian Vahakn N Dadrian suggests that this clash of nationality and religion that it had with the Armenian people was the “Achilles’ heel of the Ottoman Empire.” He argues that there was an element of ethnic cleansing, but also of expanding the Empire, which had become the sick man of Europe, “the rudiments of the Turko-Armenian conflict can be traced to this dual phenomenon of conquest and subjugation.” The Ottoman Empire saw the destruction of another country’s culture and people as an effective method to build its strength.
However, these past atrocities are denied by the current Turkish government. The “denialist phase” is the fourth stage of this genocide. This is in spite of the growing acceptance of many Turkish people. I interviewed a Turkish Oxford undergraduate who insisted that, “the current Turkish government has no legitimate obligation to defend the crimes of the Ottoman rulers. It’s a big criminal stain on their claimed national heritage.” Yet on asking her about her extended family’s views on the issue, the evidence of denial remained, “I have extended family members and people I know that do not accept the word genocide. I believe that the word “genocide” causes anxiety among people in general in Turkey...I think their stand whitewashes the crime committed.”
I found that this student was representative of many Turkish young people protesting against their government’s stance on the past. She commented that “more and more young people in Turkey agree that there was wrong done to the Armenian people”. This can be seen from the petition, named “I apologise”, released by Turkish intellectuals last year, admitting that the genocide took place. Over 1,000 Turkish people signed beneath the statement, “My conscience cannot accept the ignorance and denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and - on my own behalf - I share the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers - and I apologise to them."
Yet denial within in Turkey remains extensive. Propagandist history books in schools teach children that there was no genocide. The Turkish government strongly opposes the use of the word “genocide” and to use it, or acknowledge the cruelty against the Armenians, is viewed as “insulting Turkishness”. Indeed, this is the reason why the Turkish student who I have interviewed must remain anonymous. The murder of Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian liberal journalist by a young right-wing Turkish patriot suggests the continuation of anti-Armenian feeling within Turkey. Dink had previously been accused by the government of “insulting Turkishness” for his stance in favour of softening Turko-Armenian relations. The reaction of the Turkish people to this event was ambivalent. While a million people marched in protest to the assassination, chanting “we’re all Armenians” as a mark of solidarity, there still existed the disturbing fact that nationalist and reactionary young Turks had acted upon their anti-Armenian feeling.
Turkey’s official stance on the events that took place is that around 600,000 Armenians died as a result of war. They suggest that the deaths were a result of a civil war between Armenia and Turkey. They argue that Armenians were traitors as they fought alongside Russia against Turkey during World War One in order to gain independence. It is illegal to refer to it as genocide in Turkey, and the countries that have not recognised it, such as the UK, speak around the subject by using vague terms such as “conflict” and “massacres”. This war of words has a tragic ironic resonance in Armenia, as the Armenian language has no word for genocide, and it is therefore referred to the “Great Calamity”. The Campaign for Recognition of the Armenian Genocide (CRAG), released a factfile on the genocide in which the danger of allowing the truth be lost in history is addressed; “Just like the Jewish Holocaust and other subsequent genocides throughout the last century, history should not deny the Armenian Genocide...This request for recognition is a moral issue that would restore truth with justice and lead toward reconciliation.” Recognition of the Holocaust is accepted world-wide, whereas Turkish denial and inability to negotiate politically has condemned the Armenian genocide to historical obscurity.
Although Turkey denies any systematic extermination of the Armenian race, a quote from 1915 by Talat Pasha, the Turkish Minister of the Interior undermines this, “...all of the Armenians living in Turkey are to be destroyed and annihilated... Without taking into consideration the fact that they are women and children and disabled, their very existence will be ended, regardless of how terrible the means of destruction may be, and without being moved by feelings of compassion.” This is a chilling assertion of the aim of the Ottoman government to wipe out the Armenians. Not long after, in 1929, Churchill commented on the systematic nature of the Ottomans’ anti-Armenian policy, “In 1915 the Turkish government began and ruthlessly carried out the infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor. There is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons.” This acknowledges the killings as pre-planned with the intention of strengthening the Ottoman Empire, an argument in complete contrast to the official Turkish stance that it was a war that took place.
The main aim of the Armenians is to gain recognition of the genocide. There are still many countries aside from Turkey, who do not recognise the events as genocide, an important example being the UK. Lord Avebury, vice-chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, often brings the issue of recognition to the House of Lords, but stated that British politicians hold back from discussing it due to “fear of Turkish trading threats”. This is a poignant reflection of the international situation during the period of the genocide. Turkey had greater political importance than Armenia, therefore the Allies did not criticise its actions, as it would not have benefitted them to do so. However, many countries, such as Canada, France, Wales and Russia, along with 42 American states, have recognised the genocide, and for some EU members, the condition for Turkey’s membership to the EU is that it must also recognise it.
At the heart of this political conflict is the importance of historical truth, or however close we can get to it. If it appears that countries or regimes are able to manipulate history to eradicate the consequences of past actions, there is a danger of repetition of events such as genocide in the future. As Hitler said disturbingly eight days before his invasion of Poland, “I have placed my death-head formations in readiness...with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”