Armenian Empowerment and 2015: An Addition to Advocacy
Pamela Steiner, April 26 2012
Thank you, Torigian family, for inviting me to speak. As you have heard, for the last six years I have been intensely engaged in the problem of Armenian-Turkish relations. The family of your former mayor has asked me here today to offer you my thoughts, including some that are unconventional. I am eager to share them with you.
But our starting point today is not unconventional at all. It is my great honor to acknowledge that all of us are here, right now, this morning, to remember and commemorate the lives and deaths of the Armenians of Ottoman Turkey 97 years ago. Let us call to our minds as freshly as we can what Armenians went through – surely those of you who are Armenian present here today, and probably others, too, have images and words that put you in touch with how Armenians lived or died in those years of terror, horror, death, injury, hunger, and of every kind of loss.
As we do this, let us at the same time come into the present, and include in our awareness where we are right now, taking in being here in Peabody, Massachusetts, part of the New England foundation of this country, still a treasured land for all peoples. I note the obvious: it is here, within today’s safety and freedom, that we are acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
At the time of the genocide, my great grandfather, Henry Morgenthau, was the US ambassador to the last government of the Ottoman Empire. The United States was a neutral country throughout his less than two year tenure. But of course Morgenthau was in Turkey at the time of what is now understood as the start of the genocide. Initially he didn’t realize the full meaning of the reports he was receiving from American consuls and others from different parts of Anatolia informing him of what was happening to Armenians. But, putting those reports together with the discussions he had been having with government leaders, he saw that the government intended to rid Turkey of Armenians. He realized that the Hamidian massacres of Armenians in the 1890’s and the Adana massacre of 1909 were precursors of an elimination policy. These earlier events had made massacres of Armenians an acceptable option.
Morgenthau was extremely distressed by all this. He frequently appealed to Talaat Pasha and Enver Pasha, two leaders of that last Ottoman government, and also the German Ambassador, Baron von Wangenheim, to use their authority to halt further violations. As ambassador Morgenthau was unusually outspoken. Even so he was aware that convention still limited what he said as of course ambassadors are subordinate to the U.S. Secretary of State. “Technically,” he acknowledged, “I had no right to interfere.” Furthermore, he feared that too much pressure from a still neutral U.S. could stimulate further damage to Armenians. Thus, in February 1916 he returned to the United States and resigned his post, completely freeing himself of the constraints of the ambassadorial role. As a private citizen he then became instrumental in humanitarian efforts on behalf of Armenians as well as participating in the push to get the United States into the war.
I find that reading his books, and other histories, to be as endlessly interesting as, in places, it is horrifying. It was a very different time. It was three decades before World War II, and it was before the world had begun to digest the lessons of that war. It was therefore before the international human rights movement, and before the very word “genocide” had been coined. It was before key international organizations were created and functioning and before NGOs were a significant pressure. It was before the concept of dehumanization had been formulated, it was before political correctness, it was before development of effective methods for treating trauma. It was before many of us had the opportunity to be educated to look at historical conflicts in order simultaneously to understand collective human action and to judge it and to try to see a way forward based on what we know now with “the better angels of our nature.” That phrase, “the better angels of our nature,” is Abraham Lincoln’s and it is the title of a magnificent recent book by Steven Pinker. World War I was a time before we understood that full democracies make a reality of human rights more possible than non-democracies. And it was before we knew that humankind was altering the environment and climate in terrible and frightening ways. As a whole we humans are still all in denial of our collective existential interdependence with each other and with this planet.
Yes, we have learned a lot, but we have yet to apply it widely enough. The lack of resolution between Armenians and Turks remains one of the most protracted and painful situations in the world, along with the Israeli-Palestinian situation, with which it shares some important commonalities as well as important differences. However, there have been hopeful moments in Armenian-Turkish relations, themselves part of positive trends in other international relations. Right now, however, the Armenian Turkish relationship doesn’t look hopeful.
2015 is less than three years away. All of us who involve ourselves in addressing that anniversary should, I believe, do so responsibly and psychologically sensitively. A sustainable resolution between Israeli Jews and Palestinians calls for complex understanding both of history and the present. Sustainable improvement in the relations between Armenians and Turks and between Armenia and Turkey requires the same. Such hefty requirements demand from all sides, the exercise of the better angels of our nature -- being true to historical realities, and to taking perspective on them, being pragmatic and not only pragmatic, being moral and not only moral, being rational and also emotional, being emotional and also rational, all at the same time. Discussing these hefty requirements further now with you may mean moments of touching pain.
Studies show that under most nationalist regimes, slanted history is written. Under democracies, more objective history is written (p 641, Pinker). That is because true democracies permit free dissemination of information and open discussion, especially criticism of government policies. Democracy isn’t just about voting -- both Armenia and Turkey embrace voting. But both Armenia and Turkey lack the other two requirements of democracy. Efforts to date inside these countries have failed to achieve freedom of information and open discussion. Such countries will benefit from outside pressure for fuller democratic practice and truth in the telling of history.
But what about Morgenthau’s concern that outside pressure might boomerang? In general, that is less a reality today. A few months ago Turkey threatened to take out its anger at the French law proposing criminalization of genocide denial on Armenians living in Turkey. Apart from whether or not the proposed law was wise, outside opinion slammed down on that concrete threat to Armenians. Turkey dropped it. Outside pressure can be very precious. On the other hand, in our time the world did not prevent the Rwandan genocide.
Leading up to 2015, Turkey of course anticipates pressure from global players to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Reportedly, however, officially Turkey is enacting policies to blunt such outside pressure. Turks living outside the country have been instructed in a variety of ways that can be summed up as a “soft” approach to diplomacy, to meet with Armenians and get to know them in their communities. This sounds like a good idea and is worth a closer look. Usually such a soft approach is done unofficially, not through sponsorship or funding from governments who are direct stakeholders. Its usual methods include dialogue among individuals open to speaking and listening, in order to learn about each other and about common needs for security and respect. But the key point is its goal -- a win/win solution, a solution understood to be defined by the parties interacting together over time. To have integrity, such “soft” discussion must be based on facts, realities. In contrast, the method of a hard approach is quite different: it entails the use of force and political power by governments, with the goal of winning and the other side losing.
Some Armenians are sounding an alarm about the official Turkish call for the methods but not the goal of soft diplomacy. They fear the aim of adopting such methods to pursue a preset goal, maintenance of genocide denial. Furthermore, Armenians sounding this alarm, as I understand them, presume that these softer approaches will be effective, that Turkey will tout these initiatives to nations who are considering recognition of the Armenian Genocide, thereby supposedly giving these nations an excuse not to do so. Other nations might then be relieved at not choosing between recognition and rocking their relationship with Turkey. That possibility has to be taken into account. Even the U.S. and Israel have not recognized the Armenian genocide for fear of upsetting their strategic relationships with Turkey.
What should Armenians do between now and 2015? First, recognize that the choice between hard and soft approaches may be false. Ask yourselves if advocacy carried out by solely hitting the nail on the head in the old ways is a likely winner. Ask yourselves if progress to date has depended solely on a hard approach. And ask yourselves whether a solely hard approach is in the interest of the Armenian nation. Soft approaches, carried out with integrity, as I have briefly outlined provide new opportunities for Armenians, especially those who are empowered.
Here in a nutshell is what I mean by Armenian empowerment. I speak as a facilitator of “conflict resolution” dialogue, in which third parties bring Armenians and Turks together to speak to each other in structured settings. I also speak as a psychologist who has specialized in working to empower individuals with trauma in one-to-one psychotherapy and in groups. Empowerment means thinking and feeling complexly about the Armenian identity. It enables chosen expression of Armenian identity, so that it works for you in your life. Empowerment rests on sufficient healing, on coming to terms with the reality of victimhood, its effect on you, whatever Turks do or do not do about genocide recognition. That means that your attention is as focused at least as much on what you do or do not do as on what the Turks do or do not do. It means that you manage most effectively expression of this identity in interactions with a range of non-Armenians because you have perspective on it. The time and conscious effort to achieve this would entail self-reflection and interactive reflection. It is empowering because it can only occur independent of anyone else and brings a new level of choice. Empowerment would not take away from advocacy, but might make it more effective.
Armenians so empowered should in my view pursue genocide recognition in part through utilization of soft approaches. Soft diplomacy is generally an effective tool in the world. Studies show that it contributes to achievement of less violent outcomes. Soft diplomacy enables enemies to learn about each other’s humanity. Armenians could seize these years as an opportunity to educate Turks, while also allowing themselves to be educated. Each people has much to learn about the other. Apart from specialists, I have encountered other Turks who are aware that terrible things happened and are open to or in a process of learning. It is, I believe, key for Armenians to be aware that Turks have mixed feelings about all this, just as Armenians do. Moreover, such an approach would add likely credibility to hard line advocacy and pressure on governments. Use of a soft approach and goal over these next years would prepare both peoples for eventual genocide recognition in ways that would better contribute to sustainable, improved relations.
Let me not be misunderstood. A soft approach includes the need for Armenians to correct distortions promulgated by many Turks, both official and unofficial, and to advocate for Armenian Genocide recognition. But how Armenians advocate may be as important as what they advocate, depending on context.
Crucially, empowerment enables listening that leads to response and not reaction. Turks sometimes say that because the UN document identifying genocide as a crime against humanity links the Armenian Genocide with the Jewish Holocaust, it means that Turks committed the same horrors as the Nazis, and that since Turks could not have done such a thing, there was no Armenian Genocide. The very illogic of such a statement is of interest. Beneath the Turkish rejection of being equalized with the Nazis is something very deep that Armenians might consider humanly. Turks who say, “My grandparents couldn’t have done this. They were decent people,” are, I believe, touching something very painful and not very conscious in their Turkish identity. For Turks to accept the reality that many of their Turkish ancestors committed the horrors that history records damages their self-image of as decent, honorable human beings. Increasing numbers of empowered Turks are doing just that.
Turks have historically been a particularly militaristic and proud nation, and in the past, like other great nations, never admitting error. Sheer power enabled them to dictate what they wanted believed about themselves. Nowadays international education, travel, and the internet bite into the ability of powerful nations to so control their citizens, as many empowered Turks have demonstrated, but, in addition, studies show that other nations, similarly unwilling to admit error in the past, today are finding that such admission works to improve relations for all. Win/win.
Even if Turkey today were a fuller democracy, however, it would still be difficult for the country to come to terms with committing genocide, decades of deliberate cover up, and great if unconscious shame about admitting both. Most of us shun admitting to shame as it feels re-shaming. Hence the attention nations pay to saving each others’ faces. But although initially forced and pressured to do so, Germany the nation eventually took on its shame. It took considerable responsibility for Nazi misdeeds. Germany has provided a standard that other nations should imitate. Armenians could push for recognition while showing understanding of the difficulty for Turkey to come to terms with the past. But at the same time they could say that Turkey’s failure to acknowledge genocide contributes to keeping Armenian existential fears alive -- especially when Turkish officials blame Armenians for what happened and when they fail to punish the murderers of Hrant Dink. Genocide recognition by Turkey could to some extent ground Armenian fears of any recurrence.
Many Turks will claim that Armenian casualties were not the result of a deliberate genocidal policy – and this of course must be disputed with the hard facts – but also, and this is the soft element—they are asking Armenians to share with them the pain of what happened during the war. Many Turks were indeed traumatized in the years before and during World War I. The conditions under which they lived during the breakup of the Empire and during the war itself meant extreme hardship for the majority.
Such suffering of Turks deserves acknowledgement not only in history books. As well as telling their own stories, Armenians could inform themselves through listening to the stories of Turks. Armenians could recognize Turkish suffering in its details and show understanding. Crucially, at the same time, Armenians would ask Turks to acknowledge that Turkish suffering was not caused by Armenians.
In the next years, some Turks will remind Armenians and others that today most of their countrymen and women are ignorant about the Armenian Genocide as well as uninformed and misinformed about Armenians generally and that it would take time to educate them. Whatever their motivation for saying so, those voices are accurate. It is understandably frustrating if not infuriating for Armenians to respond positively to a plea for more time. But there is one condition under which I believe Armenians would understand the need for time to alter such ignorance and such decades-long deliberate distortion: if Turkey officially demonstrated adoption of convincing policies for honest facing of history. I believe that that is the best way for Turks to deal with these years, which offer a unique opportunity for them, too. This is no easy task because, as I have said, it involves the deepest matters about Turkish national identity and pride and so involves a political risk, calling for true leadership.
Moreover, Turkey needs to be acknowledged as not alone in the world of nations needing to undertake such a task. Many nations’ histories have unacknowledged shameful episodes. Perhaps we need a United Nations Day for such nations to lose face together as they get honest about shameful elements in their histories.
Turkey also aims to blunt genocide recognition for fear of having to surrender territory and pay reparations. At different moments and to different degrees, most of World War I’s Allies -- British, French, Italian, and Greek -- intended to take over Anatolia (not to mention Turkey’s ally, Germany). The fear generated by that threat is known as “the Sevres syndrome,” and is alive today. That fear has supported justifications to legitimize non-democratic practices in Turkey’s securitized, deep state. At the right time, aconcrete Armenian position on both territory and reparations might to some extent ground Turkish fear stemming from the threat to Anatolian territorial integrity nearly 100 years ago, and make both matters negotiable.