Tweet
ON ETHICS AND OPPORTUNISM IN SCIENCE
The Armenian and Russian versions of this article were published
on 25 March 2011
3 May 2011
Yerevan
On March 10 of the current year an article by Hayk Demoyan, Kandidat
(Ph.D.) of Historical Sciences and Director of the Armenian Genocide
Museum-Institute of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of
Armenia (AGMI), entitled "Karabakh and Turkey's Genocidal Attempts" was
widely disseminated by e-mail by the same institute in three languages
(Armenian, Russian and English). On the same day the article was also
published on the websites of AGMI as well as ASPAREZ Online daily
in LA.
Any article, especially in foreign languages, claiming the
authority of AGMI, should meet the strictest criteria of academic
accountability and ethics since the Museum-Institute, its very name,
title and location (Tsitsernakaberd), are of a paramount importance
for our statehood and the entire Armenian people. Unfortunately,
this relatively short article (1233 words in its English version),
which has been internationally disseminated, is deficient in many
respects, including incorrect representations of historical facts,
opportunistic interpretations, violations of scientific ethics,
unsubstantiated conclusions, pseudo-scientific forms... In addition,
the English version of this article is very poor - to put it mildly -
and thoroughly inadequate for a scientific-academic piece by AGMI.
Firstly, the very formulation of the question is unscientific,
namely posing the problem of Turkish genocidal attempts in Artsakh
(Karabakh) in isolation from the general policy of the Sublime Porte
implemented towards Armenia and the Armenian people. In particular the
author unjustly singles out Ottoman attempts to suppress the Karabakh
Armenians' resistance of the 1720s ignoring the identical policy of
the Turks against neighbouring Syunik, Yerevan and other Armenian
regions and settlements. Demoyan is also disorderly, confusing and
wordy when he makes the following groundless conclusion: "The Turkish
approaches towards the solution of Karabakh issue in the historical
and modern dimensions in some way turned Karabakh into a polygon for
approbation and implementation of genocidal policies by Sultans, Young
Turks and Kemalists/Republicans". However, Karabakh could not represent
"a polygon for approbation and implementation of genocidal policies"
by the Turks if only because during the historical periods in question
(the 1720s, 1918-21 and the 1990s) in this mountainous Armenian
province there were Armenian armed forces, which, as Demoyan himself
admits, offered effective resistance against Ottoman and Azerbaijani
forces. Therefore viewing the Turkish genocidal attempts in Karabakh in
isolation is anti-historical and is dictated by the desire to adapt to
the present political moment. The opportunistic way of thinking leads
Demoyan to the politically bankrupt and highly detrimental position of
representing Armenia and Karabakh as separate countries. Here is the
evidence taken from Demoyan's article: "The Thrkish (sic! should be
Turkish - G.Y.) interference in Karabakh conflict and the open support
to Azerbaijan in the war against Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia...,"
"Permanent military menace and attempts at escalation, the blockade
of Armenia and the efforts to isolate Armenia from the regional
and international politics created a direct threat towards Armenia
and Karabakh." Isn't the Director of AGMI not aware that Karabakh is
part of Armenia in every respect, whether ethnically or economically,
culturally or linguistically, historically and, after all, militarily,
not to mention the 1989 December 1 Declaration of Unification which
to date has not been rescinded? Is Demoyan unaware that Armenia, as a
concept that defines the Armenian homeland, includes the Republic of
Armenia (RA) and the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR), as well as
Armenian territories occupied by its neighbours (unfortunately there
are too many in the upper echelons of RA authorities and their legion
of palace-serving "experts" who differentiate and separate the concepts
of "Armenia" and "Artsakh-Karabakh"). In fact, by representing Karabakh
as a separate country, Demoyan, willingly or not, is supporting a
pseudo-historical thesis and as such is preparing the ground for the
dangerous and nation-destroying projects of external forces who,
at first, would separate NKR from RA, and Artsakhtsis from those
Armenians living out of NKR, and then set them off against each other.
Secondly, Mr. Demoyan violates the basic norms of scientific ethics,
ignoring the monograph The Armenian Rebellion of the 1720s and the
Threat of Genocidal Reprisal (Yerevan, 1997) by Armen Ayvazyan,
Doctor of Political Sciences. In this monograph, for the first time
in the Armenian historiography, a hypothesis was put forth, which
posited that it was in the 1720s that the leading circles of the
Ottoman Empire came up with plans and intentions for the complete
extermination of the Armenians throughout the territory of Armenia
(both Eastern and Western). Ayvazyan proved this hypothesis on the
basis of an impressive corps of multilingual primary sources and
historical literature. Among the main reasons for the formation of such
sentiment Ayvazyan indicates a fierce military resistance against the
Ottoman armies in Artsakh, Syunik, Yerevan, Lori and some other centers
of the Armenian national liberation movement. According to Ayvazyan,
genocidal mentality and ideology originally accompanied the public
policy of the Ottoman Empire and were supported by well-developed
mechanisms for their implementation. One of these mechanisms was a
fatwa - legal religious decision by the Supreme Islamic clergy.
In short, the monograph by Ayvazyan - which, incidentally, has long
been referred to in scholarly circles, repeatedly reviewed and fully
posted on the Internet - presents and analyzes exactly the topics,
which Demoyan touches upon in his article dated March 10, 2011. In
particular, in his aforementioned book Ayvazyan examines the resistance
put up in Karabakh (and Syunik!) against Ottoman armies, destruction
and loss of the latter in the 1720s (pp. 4-20); the intentions to
eliminate the Armenian population (pp. 21-32); the confession of the
captured Ottoman military commander Saleh Pasha (pp.
39-40). In fact, the whole book by Ayvazyan puts forth and explores
the issues, which Demoyan discusses while presenting them as the fruit
of his original thought, without referring to the work done prior to
his article.
In the chapter entitled "Ottoman Decision-Making and Exercise on
Extermination During the 1720s" (pp. 33-36), for the first time in
Armenian historiography Ayvazyan presented and analyzed the fatwas
(legal religious rulings issued by a mufti) of the 1720s on the
destruction of the Shiite and Christian populations.
Meanwhile, without referring to Ayvazyan's book, Demoyan writes:
"In 1725 Sultan Ahmet III (1703-1730) issued a special fatwa to
exterminate Armenians for their successful resistance against the
Ottomans and ordered to kill them all for bringing the Russians into
the Caucasus and blocking the access of the Ottomans towards Baku."
Here Demoyan makes a double mistake:
a) The Sultan could not issue a fatwa, because this was the
exclusive prerogative of the supreme spiritual authority of the Ottoman
Empire - the Grand Mufti (whose title was Sheikh ul-Islam) - to whom
the Sultan would turn with any question of national importance. After
a fatwa had been issued, it would automatically come into force and
even the Sultan had no right to revoke it.
b) Historical evidence on a specific fatwa published in 1725 about
the extermination of the Armenians does not exist or has not yet been
discovered. We know only about two such fatwas issued in Constantinople
(Istanbul) in 1723 and 1730, respectively. Both fatwas were directed
primarily against the Shiites of Persia, and, to a lesser extent -
against the Christians (see Ayvazyan, op. cit., pp.
33-36).
Demoyan quotes a statement made by the Ottoman commander Saleh pasha,
captured by Armenians in Karabakh in 1725, in which he spoke (without
giving any exact date) of the Sultan's "order" to exterminate the
Armenians and the Shiites. But any Armenian historian, especially
the Director of such a major institution as AGMI, should know that
an order of Sultan and a fatwa are two very different things! It
should be noted that the confession of Saleh Pasha is fully cited
and interpreted in Ayvazyan's book (pp. 39-40). Numerous repetitions
of the arguments and facts found in Ayvazyan's book, without ever
mentioning his name, are a cause for serious reflection...
In his analysis of the confession of Salah-pasha, Ayvazyan specifically
invites the reader's attention to the geostrategic role of a "wedge"
played by the Armenian armed forces in Syunik and Artsakh (as opposed
to Artsakh only, as written by Demoyan in his consideration of the
present-day political situation). Ayvazyan writes: "The Armenian
Seghnakhs - being in a position to cut off at any time the important
lines of communication between Ottoman troops and their Sunni allies,
the Caucasian mountaineers then occupying certain regions in Eastern
Transcaucasia - represented a real obstacle to Ottoman expansionism"
(p. 39). Demoyan's interpretation is similar: "In this 18th century
document we see the formation of the Turkish approaches towards
'non-obedient' Armenians, who as it was stated, were like a wedge
between Istanbul and the Turkic East."
Ayvazyan also quotes an interesting excerpt from a letter by Yeghia
Vardapet Martirossian of Constantinople (1665-1757), written by him on
March 9, 1725, in Constantinople and addressed to Mekhitar Sebastatsi
(1676-1749), the founder and Abbot General of the Mekhitarist Order
(pp. 28-29). The letter states that Sultan Ahmed III, "being extremely
troubled with the Armenians because of [the] Persia[n events],
has many times ordered the total extermination of the Armenians;
however, the mufti did not [agree to] issue an order to exterminate
the Armenians." In the same monograph Ayvazyan stated that Saleh Pasha
was captured in Karabakh by Armenians on March 3-4, 1725 (pp. 20,
70, note 72). The letter by Yeghia Vardapet is dated March 9, 1725,
which implies that at the time of the interrogation of Saleh Pasha
there was no special fatwa in existence that would say something about
the extermination of the Armenians. However, despite the absence of
such a fatwa, during the 1720s hundreds of thousands of Armenians
in Eastern Armenia (and not just Karabakh) still suffered massacres,
deportations and captivity.
I think the foregoing is enough to make it clear that Mr. Demoyan
was simply obliged to refer to Ayvazyan's The Armenian Rebellion of
the 1720s and the Threat of Genocidal Reprisal, because this study,
as mentioned earlier, posed and professionally examined the issues
touched on by Demoyan later in his article of March 10, 2011. Given the
fact of copyright violation by the Director of AGMI, it looks ironic
that AGMI's newsletter was accompanied by the following note in three
languages: "All rights reserved. Articles of the AGMI web-site must
be used with reference to the site."
The National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia must
take serious measures with regard to the above mentioned breach
of scientific ethics by Mr. Demoyan and all other similar cases,
which have widely spread in the pseudo-scientific world during
the recent years. If we really wish RA science to have a future,
it is necessary to give the strictest and most impartial assessment
of any of the widespread violations of scientific ethics. Let me
remind you that just a month ago the Defense Minister of Germany,
Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, was deprived of both his doctoral degree
and political office due to the fact that he borrowed passages
from various publications and speeches in his dissertation, without
providing any appropriate references. The German press nicknamed the
frustrated Minister Mr. Copy-Paste.
Thirdly, the article by Mr Demoyan in all its versions (Armenian,
Russian and English) is literally riddled, to put it mildly,
with linguistic flaws and unsuccessful constructions of thought,
unacceptable even for a student essay. For these claims not to sound
unfounded or unsubstantiated, here are just a few examples from the
English version of the article (in the Armenian and Russian versions
of this critique similar examples are given from the Armenian and
Russian versions of Demoyan's article):
1. In the following quotation of Saleh Pasha, the word "sea"
is misspelled, while the verb "assault" is used incorrectly with the
preposition "on," which should be omitted:
"'Sultan ordered to exterminate Armenians and Persians (Shia's - H.
D.), since the troops of the Russian Tsar had occupied that shore of
the (Caspian) see, thus we have to assault on them.'"
2. Re-reading of the following long passage, even several times,
still does not help one to grasp the author's idea:
"From the historical point of view Turkey's current stance and attempts
to put preconditions to Armenia and the policy of pressure with the
intent to get necessary concessions from Armenia in the settlement
of Karabakh issue seem very actual; moreover, the references to the
historical records are important in shedding a light on the origins
of the 'Turkish strategy' in Karabakh issue."
3. In the following (again, very long) sentence, Demoyan thrice
uses the word "attempt" and twice - the word "direct/directly:"
"We are not going to claim that the third attempt was a direct policy
of an extermination of Karabakh Armenians, but Turkey's strong support
to Azerbaijan in the latter's attempts at deportation and the crimes
against humanity enable us to claim that Turkey was directly involved
in a new attempt of committing genocide against the Armenians in
Karabakh."
4. Perhaps only Demoyan and his political backers know how Turkey
could become a "part" of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; note also the
misspelling of the word "Turkish;" furthermore, the definite article
"the" is superfluous in the following passage:
"The Thrkish interference in Karabakh conflict and the open support to
Azerbaijan in the war against Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia made Turkey
more a part of the conflict rather than the [sic!] its settlement."
5. Demoyan unnecessarily abuses specific terminology (Pax
Ottomanica, zero problems, Realpolitik) and again falls into tautology,
twice using the phrase "history;" the comma after "since" is used
incorrectly, so is the definite article "the" before "history:"
"Turkey must recognize the Genocide committed against Armenians
and many other nations in the 'Pax Ottomanica' since, [sic!] the
rewriting of the [sic!] history is necessary to make 'zero problem'
with its own history and memory since Realpolitik is not a solution
for the country's current national identity crisis."
6. In the first sentence of the following passage Demoyan argues
that Turkey had actively participated in the Karabakh war, while the
next sentence describes Turkey as its "passive witness:"
"It is enough to say that hundreds of soldiers and officers of the
Turkish regular army, including 10 generals were involved in the
military operations performed against the Armenian self-defense
forces. And again Turkey was loser in Karabakh, this time together
with Azerbaijan and became a passive spectator of the Baku's humiliated
defeats in 1992-1994."
We have serious doubts about the number of Turkish generals (as
many as 10!) who, in accordance with Demoyan, took part "in military
operations against the self-defense units of the Karabakh Armenians."
The Azerbaijani army simply would not have enough troops for 10 Turkish
generals! The reader is left wondering where Demoyan fished out those
deliberately exaggerated data.
Of course, the findings and conclusions of Demoyan are not justified
by his chaotic two-page text. Thus, he concludes, "Nation states of
Turkey and Azerbaijan were formed as a result of the extermination
of other nations; thus, this fact represents one of the main threats
for the future of both states."
Having great reservations about the notion of Turkey as a nation-state,
one cannot avoid posing the question: since when has Azerbaijan
become a nation-state, if the Azerbaijani nation is just beginning
to emerge from the multi-ethnic elements residing in the territory of
the modern Republic of Azerbaijan? On the other hand, the author does
not specify - exactly what and when is going to be "the main threat"
for the future of Turkey and Azerbaijan? Contrary to the opinion
of Demoyan, we are witnessing the fact that genocides can lead to
disastrous consequences for the victim populations, and not always
for states which committed them. The Armenian people have long been
reaping the bitter fruits of the first and still unpunished genocide
of the twentieth century and today it is on the verge of death (it
is enough to mention the fatal fact that two thirds of Armenians are
living abroad, outside the national political and military authority,
which in essence means assimilation - the "white genocide"). To
unreasonably write about some vague "threats" for the future fate
of Turkey and Azerbaijan is nothing but wishful thinking, childish
prattle, an illusion that has nothing to do with science.
Errors are committed also in references to the sources that Demoyan
uses. The title of his own book in Russian "Turkey and the Karabakh
conflict" is written with a spelling error. Moreover, this error
is presented both in Armenian and Russian versions of the article,
which indicates the excellent mastering of the Copy-Paste technology
by the author... Moreover, stating the year of publication of his book
("Turkey and the Karabakh conflict in the late XX - early XXI century:
Historical and Comparative Analysis." - Yerevan, Author's edition,
2006) as 1995 instead of 2006, Demoyan pushed back the time of its
edition over 11 years (!). What is this - negligence, serious problems
with the author's memory or deliberate fraud?
Finally, I would like to note that Mr. Demoyan should have written the
article about the genocidal policy of Turkey a little bit earlier -
during the "honeymoon" of the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. After
all, "attempts to put preconditions to Armenia" (this poor English
is Demoyan's) do not represent just Turkey's present position on
the issue, as Demoyan is trying to convince his readers. Turkey's
preconditions emerged from the moment of recognition of the
independence of RA. This is proved by the strategically consistent
insistence of Turkey on refusing to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia. It is commonly known that Demoyan was a fervent supporter of
the stillborn "football diplomacy" and practically the only Armenian
historian, who happily supported the political leadership of RA in its
thoughtless agreement to establish Turkish-Armenian joint commission
of historians. The opportunism in politics is sometimes forced,
while opportunism in science is always immoral.
P.S. I think it is absolutely unacceptable that the title of AGMI
newsletter - Museum G-Brief, Electronic Periodical of the Armenian
Genocide Museum & Institute, Yerevan, Armenia appears in English only
(no Armenian title for the newsletter exists). Who gave the right
to the AGMI leadership to violate article 12 of the Constitution
of RA and the "Law on Language" of RA, the first article of which
declares that the state language of RA (I want to emphasize - the
only state language) is Armenian and "serves all the spheres of the
republic" (my italics - G.Y.). Besides, in AGMI's e-bulletins, which
are distributed all over the world, the National Academy of Sciences
of RA is presented not as a superior structure to AGMI, but exactly
the opposite - as a division accountable to AGMI: National Academy
of Sciences of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute...
Imitating the popular Armenian song, we can conclude by saying: "This
is how we lead the research institute on the Armenian Genocide..."
GEVORG YAZICHYAN Kandidat of Historical Sciences (Ph.D. in History)
From: A. Papazian
The Armenian and Russian versions of this article were published
on 25 March 2011
3 May 2011
Yerevan
On March 10 of the current year an article by Hayk Demoyan, Kandidat
(Ph.D.) of Historical Sciences and Director of the Armenian Genocide
Museum-Institute of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of
Armenia (AGMI), entitled "Karabakh and Turkey's Genocidal Attempts" was
widely disseminated by e-mail by the same institute in three languages
(Armenian, Russian and English). On the same day the article was also
published on the websites of AGMI as well as ASPAREZ Online daily
in LA.
Any article, especially in foreign languages, claiming the
authority of AGMI, should meet the strictest criteria of academic
accountability and ethics since the Museum-Institute, its very name,
title and location (Tsitsernakaberd), are of a paramount importance
for our statehood and the entire Armenian people. Unfortunately,
this relatively short article (1233 words in its English version),
which has been internationally disseminated, is deficient in many
respects, including incorrect representations of historical facts,
opportunistic interpretations, violations of scientific ethics,
unsubstantiated conclusions, pseudo-scientific forms... In addition,
the English version of this article is very poor - to put it mildly -
and thoroughly inadequate for a scientific-academic piece by AGMI.
Firstly, the very formulation of the question is unscientific,
namely posing the problem of Turkish genocidal attempts in Artsakh
(Karabakh) in isolation from the general policy of the Sublime Porte
implemented towards Armenia and the Armenian people. In particular the
author unjustly singles out Ottoman attempts to suppress the Karabakh
Armenians' resistance of the 1720s ignoring the identical policy of
the Turks against neighbouring Syunik, Yerevan and other Armenian
regions and settlements. Demoyan is also disorderly, confusing and
wordy when he makes the following groundless conclusion: "The Turkish
approaches towards the solution of Karabakh issue in the historical
and modern dimensions in some way turned Karabakh into a polygon for
approbation and implementation of genocidal policies by Sultans, Young
Turks and Kemalists/Republicans". However, Karabakh could not represent
"a polygon for approbation and implementation of genocidal policies"
by the Turks if only because during the historical periods in question
(the 1720s, 1918-21 and the 1990s) in this mountainous Armenian
province there were Armenian armed forces, which, as Demoyan himself
admits, offered effective resistance against Ottoman and Azerbaijani
forces. Therefore viewing the Turkish genocidal attempts in Karabakh in
isolation is anti-historical and is dictated by the desire to adapt to
the present political moment. The opportunistic way of thinking leads
Demoyan to the politically bankrupt and highly detrimental position of
representing Armenia and Karabakh as separate countries. Here is the
evidence taken from Demoyan's article: "The Thrkish (sic! should be
Turkish - G.Y.) interference in Karabakh conflict and the open support
to Azerbaijan in the war against Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia...,"
"Permanent military menace and attempts at escalation, the blockade
of Armenia and the efforts to isolate Armenia from the regional
and international politics created a direct threat towards Armenia
and Karabakh." Isn't the Director of AGMI not aware that Karabakh is
part of Armenia in every respect, whether ethnically or economically,
culturally or linguistically, historically and, after all, militarily,
not to mention the 1989 December 1 Declaration of Unification which
to date has not been rescinded? Is Demoyan unaware that Armenia, as a
concept that defines the Armenian homeland, includes the Republic of
Armenia (RA) and the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR), as well as
Armenian territories occupied by its neighbours (unfortunately there
are too many in the upper echelons of RA authorities and their legion
of palace-serving "experts" who differentiate and separate the concepts
of "Armenia" and "Artsakh-Karabakh"). In fact, by representing Karabakh
as a separate country, Demoyan, willingly or not, is supporting a
pseudo-historical thesis and as such is preparing the ground for the
dangerous and nation-destroying projects of external forces who,
at first, would separate NKR from RA, and Artsakhtsis from those
Armenians living out of NKR, and then set them off against each other.
Secondly, Mr. Demoyan violates the basic norms of scientific ethics,
ignoring the monograph The Armenian Rebellion of the 1720s and the
Threat of Genocidal Reprisal (Yerevan, 1997) by Armen Ayvazyan,
Doctor of Political Sciences. In this monograph, for the first time
in the Armenian historiography, a hypothesis was put forth, which
posited that it was in the 1720s that the leading circles of the
Ottoman Empire came up with plans and intentions for the complete
extermination of the Armenians throughout the territory of Armenia
(both Eastern and Western). Ayvazyan proved this hypothesis on the
basis of an impressive corps of multilingual primary sources and
historical literature. Among the main reasons for the formation of such
sentiment Ayvazyan indicates a fierce military resistance against the
Ottoman armies in Artsakh, Syunik, Yerevan, Lori and some other centers
of the Armenian national liberation movement. According to Ayvazyan,
genocidal mentality and ideology originally accompanied the public
policy of the Ottoman Empire and were supported by well-developed
mechanisms for their implementation. One of these mechanisms was a
fatwa - legal religious decision by the Supreme Islamic clergy.
In short, the monograph by Ayvazyan - which, incidentally, has long
been referred to in scholarly circles, repeatedly reviewed and fully
posted on the Internet - presents and analyzes exactly the topics,
which Demoyan touches upon in his article dated March 10, 2011. In
particular, in his aforementioned book Ayvazyan examines the resistance
put up in Karabakh (and Syunik!) against Ottoman armies, destruction
and loss of the latter in the 1720s (pp. 4-20); the intentions to
eliminate the Armenian population (pp. 21-32); the confession of the
captured Ottoman military commander Saleh Pasha (pp.
39-40). In fact, the whole book by Ayvazyan puts forth and explores
the issues, which Demoyan discusses while presenting them as the fruit
of his original thought, without referring to the work done prior to
his article.
In the chapter entitled "Ottoman Decision-Making and Exercise on
Extermination During the 1720s" (pp. 33-36), for the first time in
Armenian historiography Ayvazyan presented and analyzed the fatwas
(legal religious rulings issued by a mufti) of the 1720s on the
destruction of the Shiite and Christian populations.
Meanwhile, without referring to Ayvazyan's book, Demoyan writes:
"In 1725 Sultan Ahmet III (1703-1730) issued a special fatwa to
exterminate Armenians for their successful resistance against the
Ottomans and ordered to kill them all for bringing the Russians into
the Caucasus and blocking the access of the Ottomans towards Baku."
Here Demoyan makes a double mistake:
a) The Sultan could not issue a fatwa, because this was the
exclusive prerogative of the supreme spiritual authority of the Ottoman
Empire - the Grand Mufti (whose title was Sheikh ul-Islam) - to whom
the Sultan would turn with any question of national importance. After
a fatwa had been issued, it would automatically come into force and
even the Sultan had no right to revoke it.
b) Historical evidence on a specific fatwa published in 1725 about
the extermination of the Armenians does not exist or has not yet been
discovered. We know only about two such fatwas issued in Constantinople
(Istanbul) in 1723 and 1730, respectively. Both fatwas were directed
primarily against the Shiites of Persia, and, to a lesser extent -
against the Christians (see Ayvazyan, op. cit., pp.
33-36).
Demoyan quotes a statement made by the Ottoman commander Saleh pasha,
captured by Armenians in Karabakh in 1725, in which he spoke (without
giving any exact date) of the Sultan's "order" to exterminate the
Armenians and the Shiites. But any Armenian historian, especially
the Director of such a major institution as AGMI, should know that
an order of Sultan and a fatwa are two very different things! It
should be noted that the confession of Saleh Pasha is fully cited
and interpreted in Ayvazyan's book (pp. 39-40). Numerous repetitions
of the arguments and facts found in Ayvazyan's book, without ever
mentioning his name, are a cause for serious reflection...
In his analysis of the confession of Salah-pasha, Ayvazyan specifically
invites the reader's attention to the geostrategic role of a "wedge"
played by the Armenian armed forces in Syunik and Artsakh (as opposed
to Artsakh only, as written by Demoyan in his consideration of the
present-day political situation). Ayvazyan writes: "The Armenian
Seghnakhs - being in a position to cut off at any time the important
lines of communication between Ottoman troops and their Sunni allies,
the Caucasian mountaineers then occupying certain regions in Eastern
Transcaucasia - represented a real obstacle to Ottoman expansionism"
(p. 39). Demoyan's interpretation is similar: "In this 18th century
document we see the formation of the Turkish approaches towards
'non-obedient' Armenians, who as it was stated, were like a wedge
between Istanbul and the Turkic East."
Ayvazyan also quotes an interesting excerpt from a letter by Yeghia
Vardapet Martirossian of Constantinople (1665-1757), written by him on
March 9, 1725, in Constantinople and addressed to Mekhitar Sebastatsi
(1676-1749), the founder and Abbot General of the Mekhitarist Order
(pp. 28-29). The letter states that Sultan Ahmed III, "being extremely
troubled with the Armenians because of [the] Persia[n events],
has many times ordered the total extermination of the Armenians;
however, the mufti did not [agree to] issue an order to exterminate
the Armenians." In the same monograph Ayvazyan stated that Saleh Pasha
was captured in Karabakh by Armenians on March 3-4, 1725 (pp. 20,
70, note 72). The letter by Yeghia Vardapet is dated March 9, 1725,
which implies that at the time of the interrogation of Saleh Pasha
there was no special fatwa in existence that would say something about
the extermination of the Armenians. However, despite the absence of
such a fatwa, during the 1720s hundreds of thousands of Armenians
in Eastern Armenia (and not just Karabakh) still suffered massacres,
deportations and captivity.
I think the foregoing is enough to make it clear that Mr. Demoyan
was simply obliged to refer to Ayvazyan's The Armenian Rebellion of
the 1720s and the Threat of Genocidal Reprisal, because this study,
as mentioned earlier, posed and professionally examined the issues
touched on by Demoyan later in his article of March 10, 2011. Given the
fact of copyright violation by the Director of AGMI, it looks ironic
that AGMI's newsletter was accompanied by the following note in three
languages: "All rights reserved. Articles of the AGMI web-site must
be used with reference to the site."
The National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia must
take serious measures with regard to the above mentioned breach
of scientific ethics by Mr. Demoyan and all other similar cases,
which have widely spread in the pseudo-scientific world during
the recent years. If we really wish RA science to have a future,
it is necessary to give the strictest and most impartial assessment
of any of the widespread violations of scientific ethics. Let me
remind you that just a month ago the Defense Minister of Germany,
Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, was deprived of both his doctoral degree
and political office due to the fact that he borrowed passages
from various publications and speeches in his dissertation, without
providing any appropriate references. The German press nicknamed the
frustrated Minister Mr. Copy-Paste.
Thirdly, the article by Mr Demoyan in all its versions (Armenian,
Russian and English) is literally riddled, to put it mildly,
with linguistic flaws and unsuccessful constructions of thought,
unacceptable even for a student essay. For these claims not to sound
unfounded or unsubstantiated, here are just a few examples from the
English version of the article (in the Armenian and Russian versions
of this critique similar examples are given from the Armenian and
Russian versions of Demoyan's article):
1. In the following quotation of Saleh Pasha, the word "sea"
is misspelled, while the verb "assault" is used incorrectly with the
preposition "on," which should be omitted:
"'Sultan ordered to exterminate Armenians and Persians (Shia's - H.
D.), since the troops of the Russian Tsar had occupied that shore of
the (Caspian) see, thus we have to assault on them.'"
2. Re-reading of the following long passage, even several times,
still does not help one to grasp the author's idea:
"From the historical point of view Turkey's current stance and attempts
to put preconditions to Armenia and the policy of pressure with the
intent to get necessary concessions from Armenia in the settlement
of Karabakh issue seem very actual; moreover, the references to the
historical records are important in shedding a light on the origins
of the 'Turkish strategy' in Karabakh issue."
3. In the following (again, very long) sentence, Demoyan thrice
uses the word "attempt" and twice - the word "direct/directly:"
"We are not going to claim that the third attempt was a direct policy
of an extermination of Karabakh Armenians, but Turkey's strong support
to Azerbaijan in the latter's attempts at deportation and the crimes
against humanity enable us to claim that Turkey was directly involved
in a new attempt of committing genocide against the Armenians in
Karabakh."
4. Perhaps only Demoyan and his political backers know how Turkey
could become a "part" of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; note also the
misspelling of the word "Turkish;" furthermore, the definite article
"the" is superfluous in the following passage:
"The Thrkish interference in Karabakh conflict and the open support to
Azerbaijan in the war against Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia made Turkey
more a part of the conflict rather than the [sic!] its settlement."
5. Demoyan unnecessarily abuses specific terminology (Pax
Ottomanica, zero problems, Realpolitik) and again falls into tautology,
twice using the phrase "history;" the comma after "since" is used
incorrectly, so is the definite article "the" before "history:"
"Turkey must recognize the Genocide committed against Armenians
and many other nations in the 'Pax Ottomanica' since, [sic!] the
rewriting of the [sic!] history is necessary to make 'zero problem'
with its own history and memory since Realpolitik is not a solution
for the country's current national identity crisis."
6. In the first sentence of the following passage Demoyan argues
that Turkey had actively participated in the Karabakh war, while the
next sentence describes Turkey as its "passive witness:"
"It is enough to say that hundreds of soldiers and officers of the
Turkish regular army, including 10 generals were involved in the
military operations performed against the Armenian self-defense
forces. And again Turkey was loser in Karabakh, this time together
with Azerbaijan and became a passive spectator of the Baku's humiliated
defeats in 1992-1994."
We have serious doubts about the number of Turkish generals (as
many as 10!) who, in accordance with Demoyan, took part "in military
operations against the self-defense units of the Karabakh Armenians."
The Azerbaijani army simply would not have enough troops for 10 Turkish
generals! The reader is left wondering where Demoyan fished out those
deliberately exaggerated data.
Of course, the findings and conclusions of Demoyan are not justified
by his chaotic two-page text. Thus, he concludes, "Nation states of
Turkey and Azerbaijan were formed as a result of the extermination
of other nations; thus, this fact represents one of the main threats
for the future of both states."
Having great reservations about the notion of Turkey as a nation-state,
one cannot avoid posing the question: since when has Azerbaijan
become a nation-state, if the Azerbaijani nation is just beginning
to emerge from the multi-ethnic elements residing in the territory of
the modern Republic of Azerbaijan? On the other hand, the author does
not specify - exactly what and when is going to be "the main threat"
for the future of Turkey and Azerbaijan? Contrary to the opinion
of Demoyan, we are witnessing the fact that genocides can lead to
disastrous consequences for the victim populations, and not always
for states which committed them. The Armenian people have long been
reaping the bitter fruits of the first and still unpunished genocide
of the twentieth century and today it is on the verge of death (it
is enough to mention the fatal fact that two thirds of Armenians are
living abroad, outside the national political and military authority,
which in essence means assimilation - the "white genocide"). To
unreasonably write about some vague "threats" for the future fate
of Turkey and Azerbaijan is nothing but wishful thinking, childish
prattle, an illusion that has nothing to do with science.
Errors are committed also in references to the sources that Demoyan
uses. The title of his own book in Russian "Turkey and the Karabakh
conflict" is written with a spelling error. Moreover, this error
is presented both in Armenian and Russian versions of the article,
which indicates the excellent mastering of the Copy-Paste technology
by the author... Moreover, stating the year of publication of his book
("Turkey and the Karabakh conflict in the late XX - early XXI century:
Historical and Comparative Analysis." - Yerevan, Author's edition,
2006) as 1995 instead of 2006, Demoyan pushed back the time of its
edition over 11 years (!). What is this - negligence, serious problems
with the author's memory or deliberate fraud?
Finally, I would like to note that Mr. Demoyan should have written the
article about the genocidal policy of Turkey a little bit earlier -
during the "honeymoon" of the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. After
all, "attempts to put preconditions to Armenia" (this poor English
is Demoyan's) do not represent just Turkey's present position on
the issue, as Demoyan is trying to convince his readers. Turkey's
preconditions emerged from the moment of recognition of the
independence of RA. This is proved by the strategically consistent
insistence of Turkey on refusing to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia. It is commonly known that Demoyan was a fervent supporter of
the stillborn "football diplomacy" and practically the only Armenian
historian, who happily supported the political leadership of RA in its
thoughtless agreement to establish Turkish-Armenian joint commission
of historians. The opportunism in politics is sometimes forced,
while opportunism in science is always immoral.
P.S. I think it is absolutely unacceptable that the title of AGMI
newsletter - Museum G-Brief, Electronic Periodical of the Armenian
Genocide Museum & Institute, Yerevan, Armenia appears in English only
(no Armenian title for the newsletter exists). Who gave the right
to the AGMI leadership to violate article 12 of the Constitution
of RA and the "Law on Language" of RA, the first article of which
declares that the state language of RA (I want to emphasize - the
only state language) is Armenian and "serves all the spheres of the
republic" (my italics - G.Y.). Besides, in AGMI's e-bulletins, which
are distributed all over the world, the National Academy of Sciences
of RA is presented not as a superior structure to AGMI, but exactly
the opposite - as a division accountable to AGMI: National Academy
of Sciences of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute...
Imitating the popular Armenian song, we can conclude by saying: "This
is how we lead the research institute on the Armenian Genocide..."
GEVORG YAZICHYAN Kandidat of Historical Sciences (Ph.D. in History)
From: A. Papazian