Opinion
Kotchikian: A Post-Protocol Armenian World: The Challenge of Finding a New Raison D’Etre
The deed is done and all the demonstrations, objections, and insults directed against the government of Armenia fell on deaf ears. The governments of Armenia and Turkey signed the protocols normalizing the relations between them. This raises the question, what now?
This opinion piece is an attempt to raise questions related to the aftermath of the protocols and offer some interpretations. However, before embarking into the analysis, some observations need to be made about the discourse and rhetoric used to analyze this specific topic over the last month or so.
Already a subscriber?Log in here
This story is FREE for you...
Create a free account to access this and four more articles, and get more sent to you with our e-newsletter.By submitting your email address you agree for Hairenik Association, Inc. to send you communication by email.
A thoughtful discussion that has as one point the downside of a binary conception of the issue. A binary issue conception that villifies the nonconforming views leaves little opportunity to forge a common and united position. It is also the case in some instances of absolutist views that they proceed from invalid assumptions. An example, in these discussions I have read variations of the claim that signing of the protocols is the end of the Armenian people. Of course any argument that proceeds from that assumption casts anyone supporting the protocols as a traitor and enemy. Unnecessary divisiveness driven by a obviously false premise. The Armenian culture and identity has proven itself very hardy and claims of doom are a bit extended.
Thanks Mr. Kotchikian for some well needed perspective.
well said!
false objectivity topped with a desperate ambition to be a “true” academic.
Right, Poghos, right…. care to actually ground your claim? (and didn’t the author debunk the notion of ‘objectivity’ right up front?) Typical nationalist, knee-jerk, emotional reaction devoid of any analysis or thought whatsoever.
poghos’s comment is exactly what the first part of the article is trying to argue. alas any side which doesn’t agree with an issue blames it to be “subjective” “false” and “Academic” (the last one being the most common insult for those who have inferiority complexes when it comes to academic. the author never claims to be objective nor is there a claim for being academicin this piece. the level of vulgarity and incivility in this whole discussion is simply mind boggling and suffocating.
A well written piece. The author lays out the key issues, while difficult to do – I would recommend ignoring the nationalist/populist provocateurs such as Poghos. Finding themsleves in a Brave New post-Protocol world, they express their fear and anxiety through personal attacks on anyone who challenges their old ideas.
Well said: “this in turn might make the diaspora realize that it needs to renegotiate its identity vis-à-vis Armenia and look beyond the rhetoric of “one nation, one people.””
The author said this:
“This statement does not imply, implicitly or explicitly, that the genocide is not important for people in Armenia; rather it argues that the needs (emotional, physical, or otherwise) of a collective living on a piece of land known as Armenia are not similar to those living in the United States, the Middle East, or Europe.”
Contrary to the implication of the above statement, the genocide is actually more important from a practical standpoint for Armenia than the Diaspora. Witness the Russian soldiers on the Turkish Armenian border. Aside from those troops’ being a projection of Russian power for Russia’s sake, did Armenia agree to have them stationed there because Armenia is under no threat from Turkey? No, the reason must be that Armenia itself perceives a real threat. Probably a genocidal one. The threat was there going way back to even before the 1915 Genocide as Turkey made repeated thrusts to the east.
In an issue of the Gomidas Institute’s now defunct Armenian Forum, Simon Payaslian, Nicolas Tavitian and Khatchig Der Ghoukassian made pleas for why genocide recognition is important to Armenia. I will not comment on those articles.
I will simply say that those who think that the genocide is a fixation only of the diaspora – and that is what is implied above despite the disclaimer – would do well to remember the 1965 marches in Yerevan, and Armenians’ calling Azeris “Turks” during the Karabagh conflict. If Karabagh perceived a threat of annihilation from the “new” Azerbaijan, is it unreasonable that Armenia might recall the genocide as an important threat from the “new” Turkey?
There have been many things written about why the Genocide and reparations and land issues are important, even if unobtainable now, for Armenia, but those who disparage the genocide issue tend to not read or heed them — even Armenian American academicians who have come to seemingly own – or think they own – the platform when it comes to speaking out on Armenian political issues.
There is an undercurrent of feeling by some that ‘if we pursue the Genocide issue, Turks may be even more inclined to commit genocide again; therefore, caution, even passivity, is in order when it comes to the Genocide.’ If the author does not believe that is the proper attitude, please tell us why.
I would also like to know if the author thinks that a joint genocide commission is a good idea, especially one on which Turkish deniers sit alongside Armenians. Is this a good type of jury?
Does this joint commission indicate that the current Armenian government knows how to negotiate when even the IAGS and Zoryan think the idea is absurd?
Very bad article.
Dear Paultor,
The article never argues that the Genocide issue is not important for Armenia, rather Armenians in Armenia do not go on talking about it on a regular basis as the diasporans do. your argument about the practically of the Genocide issue from Armenia’s perspective is a valid one.
couple of corrections though. I have spent some time examining the reasons why Armenians equate Azeris with Turks and in numerous conversations with individuals and specialists on the field, the overwhelming response has been that they do make a distinction between an Azeri and a Turk however because of language similarities in popular culture the two are equated.
I do not subscribe to the point o f view that if one doesn’t talk about the Genocide the Turks would be less inclined to commit a Genocide, rather I argue that genocide recognition through 3rd parties has so far not yield results hence this protocol might provide an opportunity to change gear and take the Genocide recognition to the next level and that is among the Turkish society. most of the people at the protocol signing ceremony represent countries which had recognize the Genocide as some level yet did they change their policy towards Turkey?
as far as the whole issue of the joint sub-commission, the protocols are vague about it. they don’t say if it’s going to be a sub-commission to examine whether or not the Genocide happened, or if it’s going to be a group to categorize the archives or to organize conferences or some other thing. if the sub-commission is meant to examine whether or not the genocide happened than my answer would be an absolute no for such a group, but with the current wording I don’t see it as being a threat or a challenge about the validity of the Genocide.
the bottom line is that if the Armenian government has been shortsighted in pursuing their foreign policy, the Diaspora has been even more unprepared and living in la la land for a) not being prepared for this inevitability(the first signs of which were obvious even back in 1993-94) and b)continuing a policy which did not yield in results comparable ot the energy that was pored into it.
kind regards.
Dear Asbed:
I believe that Diasporan efforts to have Turkey and 3rd countries and organizations recognize the genocide *have* been extremely successful, though n0t 100% or even 90%. Maybe 65%. Has it been worth the energy? Yes. And, please, not all our energy has gone into the genocide issue. The Diaspora has also functioned relatively well in keeping its culture alive – church, media, social, cultural, and political organization – though of course rates of assimilation are high and must also be managed. We can look at the present state of things as half empty or half full. Yes, in some ways we have failed to advance as much as we could, or even backslid.
The Armenian Cause, which has genocide acknowledgment as but one part, has been kept alive for decades and longer. It is truly remarkable, Asbed, for a small ethnic group to have kept such a thing active and relevant for so long. Armenians have brought the genocide to the world’s attention.
Turkey has been battered and put on the defensive. 100% successful? No. Has the Kurdish insurrection succeeded? No. Does that mean Kurds should end their multi-pronged efforts? No.
Turkey has not acknowledged the genocide? No problem. And who cares? Acknowledgement in and of itself has never been the goal. That is something we must educate our own people about.
We just keep hitting away. To what end? The end is justice -getting what measure of justice we can.
Asbed, no political cause of such huge dimensions can be said to have completely succeeded. To the extent that a cause succeeds, it simply brings new challenges anyway.
Can we do better? Yes. Do we need new, innovative strategies? Yes. So does Armenia. So
does Turkey. So do all political causes and countries.
You said this: “Armenians in Armenia do not go on talking about it on a regular basis as the diasporans do.” Even if true, big deal. Maybe Hayastan *should* talk more about it. Or maybe Hayastanstis don’t know enough about it as their schools are in lousy shape, and they did not learn about it enough during the Soviet era since nationalistic education was largely prohibited.
I know a Hayastanstsi woman who came over here and thought that a local Armenian Apostolic church at which she volunteered was “Catholic” ! She put down on her poorly written resume that she had volunteered at a Catholic church! Luckily I corrected that and more. These people are simply lacking a proper education. They think that because they grew up in Armenia, then they know everything there is to know about Armenians. Not so.
And maybe since Hayastanstis are poor they are more concerned with food, housing, and education.
I know that Armenian liberals think that Turkey has “changed ” since it has not committed massacres against Armenians lately. That’s because there are hardly any Armeniana left in Turkey anymore.
But the Cypriots and Kurds have been massacred lately. Forget about that? Oops. Well, every country massacres people once in a while, huh?
What would be the condition of Armenians in eastern Turkey today, Asbed, if there had been no genocide? They’d be massacred and deported in a flash if they dared to criticize the Turkish government or, God forbid, revolted like the Kurds have. What I call Armenian “liberals” ignore the realities and wish to project modernity on a country that does not deserve it.