A quest for justice

Published: Saturday September 15, 2007

Dr. Richard Hrair Dekmejian addressing the USC conference participants. ARKA Photography.

Ninety-two years after 1915, Turkey continues to enjoy the fruits of its crime against humanity - and more specifically, against the Armenian people - and the Armenian Genocide remains unpunished.

Outraged at Turkey's campaign of denial, our community has invested enormous effort in securing affirmation of the genocide by the Congress and President of the United States and in urging Turkey to recognize its crime. This effort is essential and should continue unabated.

Reaffirmation and recognition must be seen, however, as only one part of a larger struggle to achieve justice for the Armenian people.

"International Law and the Armenian Genocide: Recognition, Responsibility, and Restitution," a symposium held last week at the University of Southern California's Institute of Armenian Studies (see report on page A1 and Harut Sassounian's column on page A11) was a welcome opportunity for our community to reflect on some aspects of that larger struggle.

Kudos to Professor R. Hrair Dekmejian, director of the institute, who recognizes that Armenian studies can address the pressing issues facing Armenians and provide enlightenment, perspective, and guidance.

At the symposium, scholars addressed the retroactive applicability of the U.N. Genocide Convention to the Armenian Genocide, the liability of modern-day Turkey for the actions of the Ottoman Empire, and the jurisdiction of various courts, including U.S. federal courts, in examining claims related to the Genocide. Also addressed were denial, hate speech, and limitations on free speech.

There were discussions of restitution and compensation as well as calls for reconciliation among Armenians and Turks.

This symposium offers a convenient opportunity to spell out some principles that should guide our ongoing response to the Armenian Genocide.

First, a continued and increasingly focused discussion of our collective goals and expectations is essential. Questions of international law are one important element of this discussion, and the USC symposium was a valuable contribution to it.

Second, Turkey cannot be allowed to act with impunity. The scholar Vahakn Dadrian has argued effectively that getting away with the Armenian massacres of 1894-96 and 1909 gave the Turkish state the confidence it needed to proceed with the final solution of 1915. Nothing can bring back the lives and the civilization that was destroyed in Western Armenia. But that does not mean that Turkey should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the crime with no consequences.

Third, good-neighborly relations between Armenia and Turkey are highly desirable. Armenia should continue, as it has, to pursue such relations without preconditions. The fact that Turkey refuses to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia and keeps the Armenian-Turkish land border closed is an indication of its continued hostility toward Armenians.

There is no contradiction in seeking good-neighborly relations with Turkey and demanding that Turkey do right by Armenians. What makes no sense is the oft-repeated demand that Armenians set aside their grievances against Turkey in order to foster good relations: all the hostile acts - from Genocide in 1915 to a blockade and closed borders today - come from Turkey. It is Turkey that must reconcile itself to the truth.

Fourth, we must remember that not everything that weakens Turkey helps Armenians prevail in their struggle for justice. Thus, for example, it is quite possible that Turkey's efforts to gain entry into the European Union will help rather than hinder our efforts.

Fifth, there are no facile answers. Demands for sovereignty over the territory promised by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 and awarded to Armenia by President Woodrow Wilson (from the Black Sea to Erzincan and down to Van and Bitlis) are not grounded in reality. Finding workable answers will require creativity.

Restoring all Armenian church properties to the Armenian church is certainly an important part of any solution. Some of the ideas floated by former ambassador John Evans at the USC conference - such as establishing a special status for Ararat and Ani - point in a promising direction.

Some solutions, such as a Turkish fund under Armenian control that would invest in preserving and restoring Armenian monuments, especially in economically disadvantaged eastern Turkey, can be win-win solutions for Turkey and the Armenians. They should not be discounted by Armenians or Turks.

We firmly believe that justice for the Armenian people will benefit Armenians and Turks alike, and we invite Turks to join us in our quest for justice.