On this April 24, I have come from Armenia where I live and whose citizen I am, through Syria where I was born, to Lebanon where I’ve always felt at home, to say this.
All of us together live in an interdependent world and we should act like it.
All countries live in a global community and we should all sustain it.
All neighbors should cross borders to build cooperation and understanding, not close them and fuel hostility and fear.
This is today’s world, this is the world I want to live in, and my years in the foreign ministry simply reinforced my conviction that Armenians, whose country has been trampled through history, must initiate regional cooperation and must work for rapprochement with all our neighbors and transcend all complex issues of the past. I know this as a student of history, as a diplomat, as someone who believes that politics is the art of the possible.
This year, after 94 years of commemoration and remembrance, this year, we cautiously thought we might note April 24 a bit differently, a bit more hopefully, a bit less bitter, slightly less alone in our grief, less distrustful of neighbors, less guarded about our choices, less abandoned in our search for justice. This was the year when we wanted to look our neighbor in the eye and see the beginnings of a willingness to recognize the burden of history. But it didn’t happen. On the contrary, today, I am filled with more suspicion, more misgiving, than I have since our independence.
I am by nature an optimist. In all the years that I’ve addressed audiences on April 24, I have been careful to say that we do not link the government and people of today’s Turkey with the Ottoman perpetrators. In all the years since independence, we have spoken about establishing normal bilateral relations with Turkey, without conditions and in a spirit of compromise. In response to our desire to transcend this together, Turkey has offered years of delay, doubletalk and, most recently, gestures.
Being willing to open a border with an intransigent neighbor is a compromise. Extending a hand to cooperate with a government that finances the denial of the genocidal actions of its predecessors is a compromise, a serious, grave, potentially consequential security compromise.
We expect the world to understand the real implications of a genocide that goes unrecognized and uncondemned. We expect governments to realize that living next door to a powerful neighbor, historically unrepentant, endlessly challenging political and historical truths is cause for security concerns.
Let’s for a second look back and see what demands and conditions they have repeated consistently since our independence.
First, that Armenia and Armenians relinquish genocide recognition. Recently this was fashioned in the form of a proposal to establish a historical commission. Clearly the purpose was to question the veracity of the genocide and also endlessly delay the process, by an open-ended discussion. What historical commission are they talking about? Let’s face it: outside of Turkey, the question is not at all a historical one. It is only in Turkey where history is questioned. If there are still countries who are reluctant to recognize the Armenian genocide, it’s because of their concerns about the political and economic consequences and not because they question the facts of the genocide.
I have no problem with establishing an intergovernmental commission which crosses open borders, meets under normal circumstances, and discusses various issues, including issues of the past — not to prove whether they were genocidal or not, not to question history — but to find ways to transcend history together. But accepting a commission or a subcommission to study genocide and determine whether what happened was indeed a genocide or not is absolutely not an acceptable option.
Their second demand is that Armenia and Armenians renounce any territorial demands of Turkey. This could eventually manifest itself in the form of reciprocal recognition of borders as part of the establishment of diplomatic relations. To provide an accurate assessment of this, we must distinguish between historical realities and political realities. The world recognizes us, Turkey and Armenia, with our current borders and that’s a political reality. For Armenia to normalize relations with Turkey, we must recognize Turkey’s current borders. But this political reality must not eclipse our right to talk and discuss our historical past or in any way dim our hopes to achieve justice, one day.
Let’s not forget that it is a historical reality that Armenians lived on these lands for thousands of years, and Armenia’s borders changed a great deal over the millennia. No one should be surprised that Ararat is on our state seal. At one time, an Armenian kingdom stretched from sea to sea. The last change came at the beginning of the 20th century. By the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, the territory of Armenia was 10 times what it is today. Turkey defied the treaty which had been signed by its own government, and by force, created a new de facto situation, which led to the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne which defines our current borders. Once again, I do not see a problem with recognizing current borders, but without relinquishing our history or our hopes for the future.
Finally, Turkey expects a Nagorno Karabakh resolution. The problem is that their expected solution is diametrically different from what we expect. There are no overlapping areas of agreement. Furthermore, since Turkey understands that a comprehensive solution to Nagorno Karabakh is distant, they insist that territories under Armenian control around Nagorno Karabakh be returned to Azerbaijan. If in the case of the previous two pre-conditions, some middle ground could have been found through some diplomatic formulation to achieve understanding, in this case there is none. The very territories that protect us from a repetition of 1915 in 2015 are the territories that Turkey wants us to relinquish so that they open the border.
Our losses from the genocide are enormous and incalculable – territorial, human, cultural, psychological. These are unrecoverable. But of course over time, instead of healing, they are becoming deeper and heavier because of Turkey’s policy of denial.
Denial of genocide is continuation of genocide. Turkey insists that labeling the events of 1915 as genocide is an insult to the Turkish people. It seems to me that a mature society that believes in free speech is beyond insults. But be that as it may, it can safely be said that the Turkish state created its own image, its identity, its modern history based on something less than reality. Now, with that gap in public knowledge, they are afraid that their own people will be insulted by the truth. Fortunately, there are more and more in Turkish society who are looking for ways to come to terms with their own and our shared past. Let’s not kid ourselves, their numbers are small, but they are wise, sincere and courageous. Inspired by the memory of Hrant Dink’s commitment, and moved by their own morality, they are working to traverse the chasm between us. No one expects this will be quick or easy. But we have always known for it to be successful, it would have to come from within Turkish society. Their greatest obstacle is their own government. It is absurd that 94 years later, Turkey continues to insist that the claims of genocide by Armenians have never been historically or legally substantiated.
In addition to denying their history and their responsibility, Turkey is also ably manipulating the Armenian government’s well-intentioned overtures. I don’t want to doubt that the desire of the Armenian government was sincere when they wanted to normalize relations with Turkey. But from that point of departure to today, the situation has changed so much, so many preconditions have been placed and sounded that the whole process is shrouded by a veil of uncertainty. The last expression of this was the two foreign ministries’ announcement, just two days before the anniversary of the genocide. If such a statement on the eve of April 24 is pure coincidence, then this is testimony that our authorities are indifferent to our collective emotions. This is incomprehensible. But if this was done intentionally, at someone’s proposal or perhaps insistence, and with expectations of something in exchange, that means that we have turned the genocide recognition issue into an object of give and take. That is no longer incomprehensible, but unacceptable.
Every Armenian administration since independence has managed to resist the combined efforts of Turkey and Azerbaijan to extract concessions from Armenia. I hope that today’s Armenian leadership, too, will also have the necessary wisdom, courage and determination to do the same.
In the 20th century alone, there have been 15 genocides; each group of victims have their own names for the places of infamy. What the French call ‘les lieux infames de memoire’ are everywhere. They are places of horror, slaughter, of massacre, of the indiscriminate killing of all those who have belonged to a segment, a category, an ethnic group, a race or a religion. For Cambodians they are the killing fields, for the children of the 21st century, it is Darfur. For Armenians, it is the desert of Der Zor.
I was in Der Zor earlier this week, and I saw that only luck and sand stood between life and death for our grandparents. I asked, how is it possible that 94 years later, we are still publicly calling for acknowledgment and recognition, so that by 2015, we can gather together only for remembrance. What are the values of humanity if we the victims are still explaining to the world and to the descendants of the perpetrators that we want nothing more of them than a recognition of a wrong done in the past, and a willingness to do right in the future?