The years 1915 through 1923 were witness to more than the Ottoman Turkish government’s sponsored murder of some 1.5 million innocent Armenian men, women, and children under the most inhumane methods possible. The complacent western allies allowed Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) to continue the genocide against the remnants of the Armenian population left within the eastern provinces as he sought to eliminate Armenia as a political entity and reclaim partitioned Anatolia for the Turkish state. This same period saw a free and independent Armenia promised in the Treaty of Sevres (Wilsonian Armenia) omitted in the Treaty of Lausanne, which rewarded Turkey with its present-day borders. The First Armenian Republic was founded and came to an untimely but not surprising end during these same years. Finally, in an ideological bid to influence Turkey, Bolshevik Russia forced a prostrated Armenia to cede the historic districts of Kars-Ardahan to a resurrected Turkey in the Treaty of Kars. To Azerbaijan, Moscow gave Artsakh and Nakhichevan for no legitimate reason other than to create tension between ancient Armenia and its newly created Soviet neighbor.
The aftermath of this calamitous period witnessed seven decades of the political captivity of Armenia as a Soviet republic whose interests were determined by a foreign government in Moscow. The few survivors of the Armenian Genocide had been dispersed wherever misfortune or good fortune led them; families had been decimated; most of the nation’s intelligentsia had been murdered; and far too many of the nation’s young children and women were lost in servitude, forever stripped of their birthright.
In response to these conditions, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) picked up the shattered pieces and began the laborious task of creating a unified Armenian political-cultural environment within the diaspora, free from Soviet influence. Of equal importance was their declaration of the injustices perpetrated against the Armenian nation that had to be redressed. This Dashnaktsutiun Manifesto was the nation’s demand for justice. Hai Tahd (Armenian Cause) is the combined call for (1) recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey, (2) restitution of property that victims of the genocide abandoned when forced on their death march to martyrdom, (3) reparations for the loss of property that was either confiscated or purposely destroyed, (4) rectification of boundaries that were never recognized by official treaties agreed to by a free and independent Armenia, and (5) restoration of historic lands that were awarded to her in the Treaty of Sevres (Wilsonian Armenia).
Of the various injustices perpetrated against the Armenian nation from 1915 to 1923, the genocide was the easiest of Hai Tahd’s injustices to stress. Genocide observance and the need, on both a personal and national level, to have Turkey acknowledge this grievous crime against the Armenian nation resonated with the survivors and their progeny in the diaspora. It ultimately became their cause celebre. The genocide was an emotional issue that touched every Armenian family. As such the disparate elements in the diasporan communities were unified each April 24th in observance of Medz Yeghern (the Great Catastrophe). It was the one issue that transcended political ideology.
The resulting problem from this singular focus was that the genocide was cast adrift from its Hai Tahd moorings. The genocide was treated as the only injustice that had been perpetrated against the Armenian nation during this period. The strategy was simple in concept. Unbiased credentialed historians and genocide scholars had concluded from the massive volume of evidence that a genocide of the Armenian nation had occurred. Assuming that this academic determination provided sufficient traction, the ARF sought to have foreign governments recognize the genocide. Under the weight of sufficient recognitions, as the thinking went, Turkey would then be forced to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Armenian claim. Shortchanged was Turkey’s importance as a conduit between Europe and central Asia; the evolving geostrategic importance of the region by the United States and the fact that genocide recognition by foreign governments did nothing from preventing them from conducting business as usual with Turkey.
This preoccupation with genocide recognition prevented Turkey from being aggressively challenged in appropriate venues on issues where it was vulnerable. One issue that must be considered is the “lost” survivors of the genocide. These would be the young children and women who, some abandoned by their dying parent or claimed against their will by Turkish or Kurdish families, became the progenitors of much of the population that presently inhabits the historic provinces of western Armenia (now eastern Turkey) that the Ottoman Turks sought to cleanse of its Armenian population. Whatever future legal action the Armenian nation may take with respect to this land, its present occupation by “Armenians” would be a key element in its claim. The progeny of these “lost” survivors of the genocide are today’s “forgotten Armenians” of the historic western provinces (Wilsonian Armenia).
In the United States, the drive still continues unabated to influence Congress to adopt a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Passage, if it should occur, is at best a moral victory. It will not result in the anticipated groundswell of Turkish public opinion that will force their government to finally face its past. More likely, public sentiment in Turkey will be turned against the United States and Armenia especially if the average Turkish citizen considers or is led to understand the potential economic and political costs that might be associated with genocide recognition. (As it is, 72 percent of Turkish citizens believe the United States plays a negative role in the world according to a poll appearing in the August 2009 USAID issue of “FrontLines.”) Also, the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) must consider the serious domestic ramifications it would face should it abandon the nation’s century-long policy of denial, obfuscation, and revisionism. Elements of the Turkish armed forces, K
emalists, and ultra-nationalists, as well as clandestine groups, such as the recently uncovered Ergenekon organization, are standing in the wings ready to exploit the opportunity to fan the flames to discredit the ruling AK Party.
This singular emphasis by leaders of diasporan political and advocacy organizations to achieve genocide recognition has come at a great cost with respect to contemporary issues of vital importance to the Armenian nation. Since 1994 (cease-fire date), when Artsakh gained de facto independence, resettlement programs and public relations efforts to advance the movement for de jure independence have severely languished. During this same period, the condition of the Armenian population in Javakhk has deteriorated. The Georgian government continues its policy of acculturation of the Javakheti Armenians with its pernicious policies limiting their right to equitable political representation and by creating an environment that adversely impacts their economic wellbeing and the right to maintain their cultural institutions. The plight of the Javakheti activist Vagahn Chakhalyan (presently serving a 10-year term in a prison for the most hardened criminals) represents the harsh treatment metered out by the Georgian courts in attempting to suppress dissent (see “Javakheti Activist Vahagn Chakhalyan: Justice Denied by Georgia,” the Armenian Weekly, Sept. 19, 2009).
Preoccupation with this single objective has prevented the articulation of a vision and the implementation of a program that aggressively challenges Turkey in the appropriate venues. This is no easy task, but it is a necessary one if the diasporan community is to energetically support the proper meaning of Hai Tahd. The vast resources of the diaspora must be harnessed. Issues must be clearly defined and relentlessly pursued. This is a struggle for the political survival of the Armenian nation and genocide recognition is not the keystone issue. The fact must be accepted that there is no one issue that will force Turkey to negotiate. This “one issue” strategy has allowed Turkey to focus its total attention and effort on refuting the Armenian claim of genocide. Consider how easy it has been for Ankara to cast doubt on exactly what happened during the period from 1915 to 1923, notwithstanding the fact that unbiased credentialed historians and genocide scholars have concluded from the extensive evidence that a genocide of the Armenian nation occurred.
Even in the unlikely event that a Congressional resolution recognizing the genocide should be adopted at this late date, it can be expected that President Obama would not sign the document for fear (or at least his administration would so argue) that it would interfere with the ongoing process of rapprochement (which serves Washington’s purpose).
While this effort for genocide recognition is consuming the resources and energy of the diasporan communities, Turkey, aided and abetted by supposedly unbiased Swiss mediation, has crafted documents that essentially repudiate Hai Tahd. The signing of these protocols in Zurich by Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Edward Nalbandyan and Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu sets Armenia on a path that represents a blunder of monumental proportions (see “Normalization Can Never Be Worth Turkey’s Asking Price,” the Armenian Weekly, Dec. 8, 2008 and “Caveat Emptor When Shopping for Normalization in the Turkish Marketplace,” the Armenian Weekly, March 28, 2009)
By accepting the protocols, President Sarkisian has utterly failed to uphold his sacred duty to protect the political and economic interests and strategic needs of Armenia. What a sorry state of affairs it is that confronts the Armenian nation today. In one fell swoop Turkey is on the verge of rendering Hai Tahd irrelevant by Yerevan’s shameless acquiescence. Again, it must fall upon the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Turkey’s historic and principal adversary in the diaspora, to assert itself as the loyal opposition to provide the leadership for the Armenian nation to counter the disastrous course set by Sarkisian as his administration enters the vital negotiation phase. Not only is Armenia’s sovereignty as a political entity at stake, but the ultimate independence of Karabagh hangs in the balance.
Michael Mensoian
Latest posts by Michael Mensoian (see all)
- Facing the Reality that is Artsakh - August 6, 2020
- Tourism: An Economic Tide That Can Lift All “Boats” - January 29, 2020
- The Legacy of the Hairenik and the Armenian Weekly - January 7, 2020
This article makes a reference to a presidential veto from President Obama on a future genocide resolution. This is actually not a consideration because the genocide resolution submitted is just that- a resolution. It speaks as the sense of the Congress and so requires no presidential signing as it is not binding on him to do anything.
The author makes the powerful statement of “Not only is Armenia’s sovereignty as a political entity at stake, but the ultimate independence of Karabagh hangs in the balance”, however he does not delve into how this occurs?
Considering the status NK was NOT explictly discussed in the protocols I fail to see how this hurts NK’s position. If anything does it not fortify Armenians’ hand in NK? If the Turks make it a precondition after the fact, all Armenia has to do is stand firm and failure of the protocols will be a Global PR nightmare for Turkey. Can someone please tell me what I am missing here or the flaw in my logic?
….
Preoccupation with this single objective [Genocide recognition, note mine – Ani] has prevented the articulation of a vision and the implementation of a program that aggressively challenges Turkey in the appropriate venues. This is no easy task, but it is a necessary one if the diasporan community is to energetically support the proper meaning of Hai Tahd.
…
With a strongly worded title, this article preaches that the Genocide recognition is not a priority Yet the author studies the elements of Hai Tahd 1) to 5), rightfully putting the Genocide recognition in place No1. In the paragraph quoted above, he invites the Diaspora to “energetically support the proper meaning of Hai Tahd”. I fail to understand how this can be done without addressing his quoted element element No1 – the Genocide recognition. I have the feeling that I am not alone in these thoughts.
Is this article saying that the Diaspora is wasting resources on an already exhausted issue – the Genocide is recognised enough and we cannot get it ‘more’ (usefully) recognised than what we have at the moment – and it is time to move on to 2), 3), 4) and 5)? But then the spirit of the protocols and the theatrical stunts around them clearly work against those 2) to 5).
I wonder if the author can clarify what exactly he advocates: burrying the Hai Tahd or pursuing it regardless of the current RA? Could I also ask you please in your possible reply to save yourself the direction “it is not as simple as you say” – we are all adults here. Thanks.
The author is right. It is an excellent analysis.
Thia article offers no solutions and fails to explain why AG recognition is “misguided”
I am one of the few Armenians who support Sarkisian position. It takes courage to break out of perennial victim mold we created ourselves for last thirty yrs and we must find solutions for dead end problems.Millions spent on AG could of been invested in RA,stimulate the economy there so we don’t have to read about our women working as prostitues in Turkey!
Being Armenian is greater then a tragady but unfortunatly this massage hardly gets understood properly!
Very well written an explained. This matter of exclusive-Genocide-focus has been a thorn in my side since the 1980s.
To make a bit of an extreme statement, I almost don’t care if Turkey fesses up to the Genocide, as long as Wilsonian borders are attained for a Republic of Armenia, and Turkey makes reparations to us- collectively and individually as applicable.
Disagree with the final potshot at Serjik (don’t support him per se, but the author’s language isn’t necessarily fair), but an otherwise very well articulated piece.