In a speech at Obersalzberg, prior to the invasion of Poland, Adolf Hitler made reference to some form of mass-extermination. Aware of the possible negative reactions to it, he sought to quell the fears of his supporters: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
One hundred years after these terrible events occurred, many are still outraged at the suggestion that genocide took place in the territory which now constitutes modern-day Turkey.
During a recent Sunday homily, Pope Francis referred to this massacre of the Armenians and described it as “the first genocide of the 20th century”. His comments were not well received in Turkey.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the Pope’s remarks and urged individuals to consult Turkish archives before making statements based on “delirium, not fact”. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu accused the Pope of being part of an evil front plotting against Turkey.
Their forceful remarks are consonant with the general attitude Turkey adopts with regard to the Armenian genocide.
Mr Erodgan’s call for further historical scholarship is a vacuous statement; scholars have been frequently intimidated and access to archival material has sometimes been scant. Scholars who have engaged independently in this research have all unearthed strong evidence which supports the evidence in favour of genocide. In an edited collection of essays regarding the Armenian genocide, Norman Naimark provides a context to these chilling events.
The Ottoman Empire lost several of its possessions in south eastern Europe during the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. Resentment and tension were building due to the perceived wealth of the Armenians and the Christians. Moreover, the Young Turk movement was slowly shifting the ideological zeitgeist in Turkey. The Armenians were viewed as being somewhat racially inferior; the “enemy within” that threatened the very existence of the Ottoman Empire.
Such reasoning is often made before genocidal pogroms; the individual is reduced to a statistic, an ethnicity, a political entity or a threat. Shorn of his humanity and dignity, respect for the person’s life becomes almost optional.
Most of the perpetrators were detained in Malta between 1919 and 1921
On April 24, 1915, a total of 250 Armenian intellectuals and leaders of the Armenian community in Constantinople were deported to other parts of Turkey. Several would die; one survivor would eventually describe the experience as an “Armenian Golgotha”. This would be followed by the deportation of able-bodied men and, later, women and children.
They were forced into labour camps, taken on long death marches and murdered in the most horrendous of manners. These events were witnessed by a number of international diplomats who reported these horrors to their governments.
An estimated one million Armenians were massacred or died of starvation.
Most of the perpetrators were later detained in Malta between 1919 and 1921. Efforts to prosecute had failed due to a number of reasons including pressing political pressures. Their release coincided with an exchange of prisoners between Britain and Turkey.
Raphael Lemkin would later use the massacre of the Armenians as a basis for the definition of the word “genocide.”
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Republic of Turkey continues to refuse to recognise that genocide occurred.
Its defence largely rests on the fact that the concept of genocide was not defined when the massacre took place. It disputes some of the evidence brought forward and argues that the law which instigated the Armenian genocide was not instituted by the Republic of Turkey but by the Ottoman Empire. Their defence is augmented by a concerted effort to silence efforts that might lead to some recognition of genocide.
On a geopolitical level, the Turkish government has the clout to do so.
As a Nato base at the crossroads of the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and the Middle East, Turkey commands an invaluable and unrivalled geopolitical position.
The increasingly strident and somewhat high-handed actions by Erdogan give some weight to the threats levelled. On a domestic level, recognition would undoubtedly challenge the President’s brand of nationalism.
Naimark remarked that “a healthy national consciousness cannot abide by nasty secrets hidden away in a locked drawer”.
Although the Turkish government still continues to deny the past genocide, other groups within Turkey are finally beginning to recognise the horrors that had occurred.
For Turkey itself, recognition could lead to a “purification of memory.” This concept, developed by the late Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI), rests on two assumptions: the present cannot be used as a tribunal of the past, however, the faults of the past cannot be denied. Recognition, thus, becomes a major contributing factor to reconciliation.
In a note on the purification of memory, the International Theological Commission makes a pertinent observation:
“Such a process can have a significant effect on the present, precisely because the consequences of past faults still make themselves felt and can persist as tensions in the present.”
Recognition of the genocide might also begin to heal a century-old rift leading to more opportunities for the normalisation of relations between Turkey and Armenia.
Moreover, it would provide some closure to the communities whose memory and identity has been blighted by this experience.
andre.deb@gmail.com