Anahit Sargsyan
While we all understand that one hundred is only a number, given the
iconic roundup of the century, the Centennial provided the perfect
opportunity to stop, reevaluate and re-plan. The worldwide commemoration
ceremonies, coupled with unprecedented media attention, made it clear
that raising awareness has ceased being the main issue in the Armenian
Genocide recognition process. Certainly, raising genocide awareness is a
strong foundation, yet it is still only a foundation, a platform, on
which we should continue to build. It is also essential that we take a
step back to explore the ways that we can practically use the
recognition that we have achieved so far. This is a simple concept that
most Armenians realized during the Centennial. However, what is not so
simple is the attempt to understand what exactly the next step should
be. Although it is compelling to consider that reparations should be the
new focus of our attention, in reality, the question of “what’s next”
requires a far more comprehensive approach. In fact, “what’s next” is
not a single goal, but rather a chain of interconnected objectives that
we should consider equally. Inevitably, this chain must start with a
strong and reliable Republic of Armenia. It requires modifications in
the way genocide is studied in the Armenian educational system. In
addition, it demands an unprecedented focus on international law within
Armenia. Working together, these will lead to increased credibility for
Armenia in the international sphere as a qualified candidate to take the
lead in the pursuit of remedies for the Armenian and other unrecognized
genocides.
How many Armenians, especially in diaspora, have been asked to
explain what exactly Armenians demand from the world? The answer usually
does not take long time to come out—we demand that the world to
recognize what happened to the Armenian people during the WWI and beyond
as genocide and condemn it. Not only have I been one of those people
asked, but I have also been one of those people demanding calling the
atrocities in WWI what they were, calling it a genocide. That was until
one day one of my professors interrupted me and asked why the usage of
the word genocide is so critical for us, Armenians. For example, why
calling it a mass atrocity or massacre sounds so wrong to us, even
though the word genocide itself implies to the meaning of these other
words.
I had so many answers, yet I had none. Indeed, it is hard to find an
Armenian that does not know the basic history of the Armenian Genocide,
but it is very easy to confuse most of us with a question like that. Why
exactly do we demand that it be recognized as genocide? The
logical destination of this question leads to the first ever definition
of the word genocide by the UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPG),
which not every Armenian might be perfectly familiar with. I was
certainly not familiar then. Then again, why do we purposely choose to
first expect and then to get disappointed every year when the President
of the U.S. does not annunciate the word genocide? What results do we
expect? What is the connotation of that word? In other words, in what
sense does an Armenian use or want to hear the word genocide being used?
What is our unified answer to these questions?
Ten Armenians would give ten different answers. For most Armenians,
the word genocide has a deep emotional and personal meaning; for them it
should be recognized as genocide because their parents and grandparents
were tortured and murdered and their silent hurt has to be acknowledged
by others. Other Armenians, especially in diaspora, who are the
descendants of refugees who fled from the genocide, along with the
emotional connotation, see the use of the word genocide intertwined with
the loss of their homeland. During the centennial, these people
remembered the Armenian Genocide and demanded their “homes in Western
Armenia.” Other groups of Armenians vaguely explain their demand to use
the word genocide, assuming that it suggests some kind of reparations
for their losses, in addition to punishment for the Republic of Turkey.
In the course of recognition, many Armenians still remember Adolf
Hitler’s quote
about Armenians and explain that they demand recognition because they
believe that recognizing past genocides is a key step in preventing
history from repeating itself.
Each of these points rushed through my mind within seconds while I
stood there confused, trying to answer the professor’s question. The
bottom line is that there is no single, unified answer available for us
to use. When the Centennial Committee of the Armenian Genocide created
the motto “I Remember and Demand,” it was clearer for us what were we
remembering than what we were demanding. However, as we have done our
best and climaxed our efforts to achieve international awareness during
the Centennial, it has become more important than ever to finally face
the complicated task of defining what we as Armenians can and should
demand as well as what are the practical manners we can apply to the
usage of the word genocide. In other words, it is time to wake up from
the inertia of “calling it a genocide” and supply every Armenian with a
unified answer to the question of why should it be called genocide, what
are we demanding.
The widespread success of the Centennial Commemorations proved that
when Armenians have a clearly defined set of directives, they could be
unified to successfully fulfill their goals. In other words, it is time
to busy ourselves with the task of defining what to demand and focus our
great potential to explore the opportunities of how to demand it. The
importance of this process cannot be undermined, as the lack of clarity
in the usage of the word genocide from the Armenian side not only leaves
“demanding” Armenians vague about what they are demanding, but it also
allows the Turkish side to explain the term genocide in a way that makes
the recognition of what happened to Armenians in WWI as genocide very
close to impossible within Turkey. In an interview
with CNN in April 2015, Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu
clearly stated the Turkey will never call what happened to Armenians
during the WWI genocide “because it is a legal term”.
However, does the majority of Armenians even understand how genocide
is a legal term or what is legally possible to demand? In reality, many
Armenians not only do not have a clear understanding of legal sphere of
genocide, but they have long imagined this as only a marginal solution
in the face of the rooted pain and inclination to unrealistically high
expectations. This is another part of the comprehensive approach that
the post-Centennial “what’s next” should entail. As a new, free,
ambitious and unprecedentedly informed and connected generation is
rising in Armenia, it is so important to teach them not only about what
happened during the genocide, but also what have we have achieved during
the last one hundred years, and what are the fronts of the more
focused, intelligent and legal battle that Armenia should be fighting
against the denial. An Armenian student graduating from high school
should not only have the dates and the names of the perpetrators of the
Armenian Genocide memorized, he or she should be equally familiar with
issues such as the problem of reversibility of the CPPG, International
Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, as well as about other
cases of genocide and how those were treated in international law.
Furthermore, the international human rights and human rights law must
be given increasing amount of weight in the curriculum in higher
education. The role of the Yerevan State University School of Law can be
critical in execution of this process. Instead, YSU Law remains focused
on selling its overpriced education to students, a considerable
percentage of whom are only “studying” law because their families can
afford it. The tiny percentage of students who are truly invested in the
study of international law, naturally seek better possibilities of
continuing their education abroad. But the question is: can we really
afford this? How can we set goals as high as demanding reparations and
leading the efforts in the international sphere aimed to reduce the
vagueness surrounding unrecognized genocides, when we ourselves do not
consider producing qualified and internationally competitive
professionals an absolute priority? Instead, the genocide scholars are
still taking naps at the conferences in Armenia and we still have to run
to the British lawyers that we realistically can barely afford to
present us in international courts, because our representatives are
still only good enough for opening statements.
As previously mentioned, any “what’s next” question should begin with
a strong and a more reliable Armenia. Starting from the definition of
the word genocide to the international legal battle, the Republic of
Armenia must be the epicenter. Considering the diversity of the fighters
for the Armenian Genocide inside and outside of Armenia, Armenia has to
be the core that unites the diaspora and Armenia. Thus, unification of
ideas and tools being the objective, Armenia should be the initiator of a
system that equally considers the diversity of opinions and uses the
potential of Armenians all over the world, unites them and arms them
with the understanding of what and how to demand. Here again, the
Centennial served as a trigger. After April 24th, the
Armenian Genocide Centennial Committee served as a platform for the
creation of the Pan Armenian Council, the agenda of which is very close
to the aforementioned. Moreover, the president of the Constitutional
Court of Armenia recently submitted a legal issues package on the
elimination of the consequences of the Armenian Genocide to the Armenian
President, which seems to be a promising step, although seemingly late,
considering that Turkey has been very farsighted and generous in
spending millions on exploring legal possibilities of denial.
However, these efforts will simply fade away if better and a more
reliable Republic of Armenia does not emerge from the current
inequality, economic crisis, and the devastating corruption in
educational system and other areas. The failure of Armenia to play its
role of the unifying platform will eventually mean failure for all
Armenians and the Armenian cause. Thus, it goes back and it will always
to back to the disturbing situation in Armenia. We can philosophize,
demand, blame, march for justice, attempt to become unified and be
heard. However, not only will our international image as a crumbling
country not allow us to be heard, but the diaspora itself will become
increasingly disappointed and suspicious of Armenia as a force capable
of leading the national efforts and presenting our national demands.
Needless to mention, more and more Armenians living within Armenia will
have to care more about how to economically survive in the independent
Armenia than how and what to demand. And again, we will go back to
looking sad and “demanding” recognition in the air from the air through
pop music videos that privileged people like Sirusho have learned to do
so brilliantly.
"Asbarez," December 30, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment