says TARC member Alexander Arzoumanian

The Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission will meet in Istanbul on June 6-7, 2003. We will report on the outcome of the meeting. In the meantime, we present our English-speaking readers with the translation of a recent interview with Alexander Arzoumanian, printed in Haykakan Zhamanak on May 8, 2003.

President Bush’s annual April 24th statement addressed to American-Armenians was historic this year. For the first time it mentioned the process of dialogue between Armenians and Turks. The US President welcomed this process, calling the participants “wise and bold friends.”

He was, of course, referring to the members of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. The reaction of the Armenian National Committee of America (Hay Tad) to Bush’s statement was extremely nervous: the committee alleged that the US president was trying to revive the commission, which had been created with the purpose of hindering international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Alexander Arzoumanian, a member of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, naturally disagrees with Hay Tad’s view. “Our commission includes Van Krikorian, who did a great deal for the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide in his long term as chairman of the board of directors of the Armenian Assembly of America, an organization which has led the efforts for Genocide recognition,” Arzoumanian says. He believes that TARC should be judged by its concrete achievements, rather than certain personal longings.

In fact, during the one-and-a-half years of its existence, the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission has achieved very serious results in the area of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide itself. The evidence is the report of the New York-based International Center for Transitional Justice. The ICTJ conducted a study at the request of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, and examining Armenian, Turkish, and third party sources, unambiguously concluded that the crimes perpetrated against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of the 20th century legally, unconditionally constitute genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention.

This would appear to be a major event indeed for organizations and individuals who have for long years worked tirelessly for the international recognition of the Genocide. Isn’t this study the only international document in which the Genocide is given a clear legal evaluation? But no Diaspora or Armenian group said anything positive about the document. Isn’t this odd, and isn’t it proof of the fact that many Diaspora and Armenian groups are simply horrified by the prospect that the genocide will be internationally recognized? Because if it is, they won’t be able to raise tens of millions of dollars in the name of Genocide recognition.

“There’s a lot of truth in that idea. The traditional parties believe that they have a monopoly on the issue of Genocide recognition, and they are very intolerant toward initiatives by anyone else,” Arzoumanian says, and continues, “You would have thought that an organization that has dedicated the last seventy years to international recognition and condemnation of the Genocide would only be encouraged that one more step had been taken in that direction, but perhaps it seems to some people that this calls their very existence into question. And by the way, all our contacts suggest that the most vigorous critics of our commission are people who would like to see themselves as members.”

But those people, in fact, wanted not just to be involved in TARC, but to have complete control of it. Otherwise, how it can be explained that when the Armenian members proposed that the traditional parties send representatives to participate in the work of the commission, they received no response. Nevertheless, Arzoumanian calls upon all political forces to rise above personal ambitions and perceptions, and to look at the work of the Reconciliation Commission in the context of the interests of all Armenians and of the state of Armenia.

Returning to the Armenian National Committee’s claim that the US president is trying to revive the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, I asked Mr. Arzoumanian whether the commission was indeed dead, and whether it needed to be revived. “We are, of course, pleased that President Bush and other prominent politicians welcome our work, but I would like to note that the commission is an independent body, and was created on the decision of individuals, and that it’s up to these individuals to decide whether to continue its work or not,” Arzoumanian says. He also informed us, in any case, that the commissioners had met in London following the publication of the ICTJ report and decided to continue their work.

Indeed, TARC has a fairly busy agenda. During its very first meeting, the commission decided that it would present the interested governments with recommendations regarding steps to be taken for the improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations. Arzoumanian says that a document will be published in the future outlining the steps that the commission believes are necessary to normalize Turkish-Armenian relations. First on the list, according to TARC, is the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border and the establishment of trade relations. TARC has also received a proposal from Harvard University to organize a round-table discussion on Turkish-Armenian relations with professors and students at the university. In addition, TARC plans to organize an NGO summit between Armenia and Turkey, with the participation of the heads of active NGOs from both countries. They also propose to hold meetings with the representatives of the Turkish and Armenian governments, to discuss the work done so far and future steps. The first such visit has been planned for Turkey. Regarding a meeting with the Armenian government, there is nothing definite yet.

Moreover, TARC’s visit to Armenia is a very sensitive matter. The fact is that the Armenian members of the commission insist that Turkish side visit Tsitsernakaberd to pay respect to the victims of the Genocide on their first trip to Yerevan. The Turkish members, however, have some reservations regarding this action, since they are subject to criticism in Turkey, just as the Armenian members are here. Time will tell to what extent these programs can be implemented.

But Alexander Arzoumanian believes that the future work the commission doesn’t depend on the TARC members alone. Much also depends on the attitudes of the respective governments and political elites. “If the fierce criticism unleashed in Armenia continues, it will be very difficult for TARC’s Armenian members to continue their participation in the commission. The same might be said about the Turkish members,” Arzoumanian says. He maintains that the reason for this position is not a lack of political courage, but the concern that such severe criticism of the work of the commission may make the Turkish-Armenian environment more unhealthy. “I can say, on behalf of both the Armenian and Turkish members of the commission, that for us the most important thing is that the reconciliation process, and Armenian-Turkish contacts, continue. Sometimes the opinion is expressed within the commission that if there are people who can bring this process about more successfully, then we are ready to let them take our place,” Arzoumanian concludes.

Arman Karapetyan
Haykakan Zhamanak Daily
May 8, 2003