Tweet
PANEL DISCUSSION ON ARMENIA-TURKEY PROTOCOLS HELD AT CLARK UNIVERSITY
Armenian Weekly
December 8, 2009
A panel of experts gathered at Clark University on Fri., Dec. 4 to
discuss the protocols proposed as part of the effort to normalize
political relations between the Republics of Armenia and Turkey.
George Aghjayan of the Armenian National Committee (ANC) of
Central Massachusetts served as moderator. The speakers included
Professors Taner Akcam, Clark University; Asbed Kotchikian, Bentley
University; and Henry C. Theriault, Worcester State College. Clark's
Kaloosdian-Mugar Professor of Armenian Genocide Studies was the main
sponsor, along with Bentley University's Global Studies Department,
the Friends of Hrant Dink, the Armenian Review, and the Armenian
National Committee of Central Massachusetts. The Strassler Center
for Holocaust and Genocide Studies presented the panel and Director
Deborah Dwork opened by reminding the audience that the center's
public service is directed toward building a more peaceful future
through reconciliation and rectification of historic injustices.
Kotchikian and Theriault George Aghjayan framed the protocol debate
by describing the issues that have drawn particular scrutiny from
the Armenian community. He focused on four points: The protocols do
not endorse the Armenian right to self determination; restitution for
Armenian losses is not addressed; the border opening is an issue for
Turkey alone as Armenia never closed their border; and the proposed
historical commission offers no guarantee that there will be an honest
accounting about the genocide.
Taner Akcam began the discussion with an endorsement of the protocols
despite their flaws. He said Armenians are right to feel suspicious
of Turkey because successive Turkish governments have been heir to a
policy of denial that kept the Turkish population in the dark about
the genocide. But in Akcam's opinion, the signing of the protocols
signals an end to the era of denial. The old guard and the military
have been pushed out of the Turkish political sphere. The burden
is now on Ankara to determine whether to offer a tepid apology or
to embrace a full and honest acknowledgement of the genocide. New
approaches are now needed to help Turks face the past.
Akcam Henry Theriault introduced a moral imperative to address
historical injustices. Such an imperative exists for all perpetrator
nations, including the United States. In his opinion, the protocols
fail to state the simple fact of the genocide. More importantly,
they do not recognize the fundamental inequalities between the
nations. After decades of U.S. favoritism toward Turkey, it is
unfair to expect the parties to works things out alone with Armenia
negotiating from a position of weakness. Theriault argued that
decades of denial have allowed Turkey to consolidate their gains
from the genocide. Moreover, Turkish gains are mirrored by Armenian
losses. Reparations would help to equalize the relationship and end
the material benefits that Turkey continues to enjoy.
Asbed Kotchikian offered a geo-political view on the negotiations
between Turkey and Armenia. Speaking as a political scientist,
he described the shifting power balance in the Middle East. In
particular, he pointed to the growing role of Russia in the Middle
East. The opening of the Turkish-Armenian border would allow Russia to
penetrate Turkey. The border opening would accomplish two important
goals for the Russians: increased influence over the resolution of
ethnic conflicts in their satellite regions and the opportunity to
control more electric and energy resources.
A lively discussion following the presentation of their views allowed
the experts to deepen the explanation of their ideas. The complexity
of the protocol debate suggests that continued discussion will
remain lively.
Armenian Weekly
December 8, 2009
A panel of experts gathered at Clark University on Fri., Dec. 4 to
discuss the protocols proposed as part of the effort to normalize
political relations between the Republics of Armenia and Turkey.
George Aghjayan of the Armenian National Committee (ANC) of
Central Massachusetts served as moderator. The speakers included
Professors Taner Akcam, Clark University; Asbed Kotchikian, Bentley
University; and Henry C. Theriault, Worcester State College. Clark's
Kaloosdian-Mugar Professor of Armenian Genocide Studies was the main
sponsor, along with Bentley University's Global Studies Department,
the Friends of Hrant Dink, the Armenian Review, and the Armenian
National Committee of Central Massachusetts. The Strassler Center
for Holocaust and Genocide Studies presented the panel and Director
Deborah Dwork opened by reminding the audience that the center's
public service is directed toward building a more peaceful future
through reconciliation and rectification of historic injustices.
Kotchikian and Theriault George Aghjayan framed the protocol debate
by describing the issues that have drawn particular scrutiny from
the Armenian community. He focused on four points: The protocols do
not endorse the Armenian right to self determination; restitution for
Armenian losses is not addressed; the border opening is an issue for
Turkey alone as Armenia never closed their border; and the proposed
historical commission offers no guarantee that there will be an honest
accounting about the genocide.
Taner Akcam began the discussion with an endorsement of the protocols
despite their flaws. He said Armenians are right to feel suspicious
of Turkey because successive Turkish governments have been heir to a
policy of denial that kept the Turkish population in the dark about
the genocide. But in Akcam's opinion, the signing of the protocols
signals an end to the era of denial. The old guard and the military
have been pushed out of the Turkish political sphere. The burden
is now on Ankara to determine whether to offer a tepid apology or
to embrace a full and honest acknowledgement of the genocide. New
approaches are now needed to help Turks face the past.
Akcam Henry Theriault introduced a moral imperative to address
historical injustices. Such an imperative exists for all perpetrator
nations, including the United States. In his opinion, the protocols
fail to state the simple fact of the genocide. More importantly,
they do not recognize the fundamental inequalities between the
nations. After decades of U.S. favoritism toward Turkey, it is
unfair to expect the parties to works things out alone with Armenia
negotiating from a position of weakness. Theriault argued that
decades of denial have allowed Turkey to consolidate their gains
from the genocide. Moreover, Turkish gains are mirrored by Armenian
losses. Reparations would help to equalize the relationship and end
the material benefits that Turkey continues to enjoy.
Asbed Kotchikian offered a geo-political view on the negotiations
between Turkey and Armenia. Speaking as a political scientist,
he described the shifting power balance in the Middle East. In
particular, he pointed to the growing role of Russia in the Middle
East. The opening of the Turkish-Armenian border would allow Russia to
penetrate Turkey. The border opening would accomplish two important
goals for the Russians: increased influence over the resolution of
ethnic conflicts in their satellite regions and the opportunity to
control more electric and energy resources.
A lively discussion following the presentation of their views allowed
the experts to deepen the explanation of their ideas. The complexity
of the protocol debate suggests that continued discussion will
remain lively.