Please tell us about your personal and academic
background.
All of my grandparents came from different parts of what
is now modern Turkey. So I have a personal involvement in the Turkish-Armenian
issue. I am also an archival historian specializing in late Ottoman and modern
Armenian history. I often go to Turkey to work in archives and visit various
places of interest. Only recently I went to Ayash, outside Ankara, which was
one of the locations where Armenian intellectuals from the capital were held
prior to their execution. Finally, I am the director of the Gomidas Institute
(London), an independent academic organization dedicated to modern Armenian
Studies (www.gomidas.org).
Do you consider the 1915 genocide of the Assyrians,
Armenians and Greeks to be one genocide?
Yes I do, in the sense that the Armenian Genocide was
part of a process of "homogenizing" a modern Turkish state. In the
case of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, this was largely achieved through mass
murder, but also forced assimilation of the remnants. The destruction of these
three Christian communities was one aspect of the "homogenizing"
process, which also included the murder and assimilation of Muslim groups as
well--such as Kurds, Arabs, Circassians and Pomaks. However, in the case of
Muslim groups, there were less murders and more forced assimilation, as the
history of the Turkish Republic shows.
As you are aware, scholars focusing on the Assyrian
Genocide are a few. Why do Genocide scholars broadly speak so little about the
fate of co-victims of the Ottoman Empire genocide, as opposed to that of the
Armenians? How can low-levels of interest in the Assyrian genocide amongst
scholars be explained?
There are many reasons. 1. The destruction of Assyrians
took place in more isolated parts of the Ottoman Empire, most notably in
Hakkirari-Diyarbekir; 2. Elsewhere, Assyrians were often an invisible Christian
minority and seen as "Armenians" by outsiders--such as in the Harput
region. They were counted as Armenian victims; 3. Many Armenian historians have
not bothered to find out more about Assyrians, or they have not wanted to
dilute their "Armenian narrative" by dwelling on the murder of
Assyrians as a separate category; 4. Assyrians and their sympathisers have not
been able to represent the Assyrian experience better. This need not be the
case today, and it is not. There are more publications on Assyrians and a
better understanding of their fate as a distinct ethnicity.
Does the Blue Book compiled by Viscount Bryce and Arnold
Toynbee remain the most authoritative reference for primary-source
documentation of the genocide, or is new research revealing hitherto unknown
information and perspectives?
The Blue Book was a catalyst in informing the world about
the Armenian Genocide. I believe that Bryce and Toynbee considered calling it
"The Treatment of Armenians and Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire,
1915-16." I believe they did not do so because information about Assyrians
was weaker--they simply did not have the authoritative information they needed
at hand. One can see this in the Toynbee Papers at the UK National Archives.
For example, the Americans in Diyarbekir were expelled before the killings
began, so that a crucial part of the potential evidence was missing. That was
not the case for Trebizond, Harput, Aleppo, or Damascus where there were US
Consuls, missionaries and others. However, Assyrians were mentioned in the
book, but not in the title of the book.
While the Blue Book was compiled under difficult
circumstances and made its essential point, we now have a great deal of
information, primary sources, that were not available to the authors of the
Blue Book. The history of the Assyrian Genocide should be based on this broader
range of records, not only such sources as those in German and Austrian
archives, but also the testimonies of Assyrians themselves. There is a lot of
potential to make progress, if there is the right organization to promote it.
Asked in 2005 whether Armenia should become the first
state to acknowledge the Assyrian genocide, respected scholar Professor Vakhan
Dadrian commented, '… I can't give you an answer, because we do not know much
about your experience.' Referring to the latter comment, Professor Hannibal
Travis has suggested that 'there is a movement within genocide studies to
construct an Armenian Genocide that affected Armenians only' and that this
genocide is 'discontinuous from the experiences of victims of anti-Christian
massacres in historic Assyrian [sic], Pontic Greece, and Thrace.' Would you
agree with Professor Dadrian's suggestion that little is known about the
Assyrian genocide? How would you, in turn, respond to Professor Travis'
analysis?
Professor Travis does have a valid point, and we know a
great deal more about the Assyrian experience today. I suggest that we focus on
making the Assyrian issue better understood today. Professor David Gaunt has a
very good book on the Assyrian experience, and I hope more scholars will follow
it up. I am always happy to work with Assyrian scholars, and indeed, I do so.
But Assyrians should create the means to bring such work to fruition--that
means funding for excellent research, publications, dissemination of
information, and not least, the creation of a new generation of academics who
can continue with such work.
In March 2012, the Armenian Parliament rejected a
proposal to consider a bill recognizing the Assyrian and Greek genocides.
Assyrians worldwide have asked; 'if Armenia cannot understand the need for
recognition, then who can?' Should Armenia have recognized the Assyrian
genocide and would you urge the Republic to reassess is previous decision?
Armenia should be the first country to express solidarity
with Assyrians and recognize the Assyrian Genocide--both at the state and
non-governmental level. I am sure, with a little work, it would be possible to
win over people in Armenia to take a stand on the Assyrian issue.
How best can the three main victim groups cooperate for a
united approach towards genocide recognition and justice? How necessary is a
united approach?
Adopting common projects (i.e. supporting common research
and publications), maintaining academic standards, making such knowledge
available at a popular level. I should also add that many Turks, Kurds and
other Muslims recognize the genocides that were committed in the Ottoman Empire
and modern Turkey, and they identify with the victims of these genocides. Of
course, this is a welcome development because it holds the prospect of a real
resolution based on principles of shared human and ethical values. Recently at
the two main commemorations of the "Armenian Genocide" in Istanbul,
Turkish sympathizers did not leave out Assyrians as one of the main groups who
were destroyed in 1915. So, once more, there is a foundation to work on--but
Assyrians need to work together and project their case in a sensible manner.
Having said all this, I have to say that there is progress, and I appreciate
the work your Seyfo Center [Assyrian Genocide Research Center] has done over
the years. I hope you are getting the support you need to carry on and expand
your work.
What is the extent of your work with Assyrians and
Assyrian genocide scholars and activists?
I have good relations with Assyrian scholars, and this
summer we have two advanced scholars working on Assyrian issues at the Gomidas
Institute in London.
By Joseph Haweil
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder
Not: Yalnızca bu blogun üyesi yorum gönderebilir.