Armenian Diaspora and the Quest for Armenian Genocide Recognition (original) (raw)
Related papers
Turkey, Armenia, and the Politics of Genocide Recognition (The Central Asia and Caucasus Analyst)
April 24th marked the centennial of what many have referred to as the first genocide of the 20th century. The anniversary of the tragic events in eastern Anatolia that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of predominantly ethnic-Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire sparked renewed interest in the historical circumstances of the massacres which the Turkish authorities have refused to acknowledge as an act of genocide. Consequently, the political context of the genocide recognition has again come to the forefront of international reflections on the 1915 events.
Turkish-Armenian Relations and the Issue of the Recognition of the claims of the Armenian genocide
This article examines the Turkish-Armenian relations, its development throughout the history and the situation between those two countries since Recep Tayyip Erdogan became the prime minister of Turkey in 2003 resulting in the change of the Turkish foreign policy. The main focus is on the problems between Turkey and Armenia stemming out from the different view on the happenings in 1915 and the recognition of the so called Armenian genocide. The article analyzes the decision-making of the individuals, the international organizations and the states when it comes to the question of the so called Armenian genocide and the reasons of the decisions made by individuals and states. These decisions are subjected to criticism on the basis of the reality image theory by Ibrahim Canbolat (1993) and the Thomas theorem (1928) as well as other criteria. States are the most important actors in the article because they form the foreign policy and the influence of this particular problem of the decisions of states influences the relations between Turkey and the EU as well as other world powers. Turkey's importance and image are still worsened due to these reasons and unfortunately, it seems that states have no interest in finding the truth.
2007
The large-scale massacres of Christian Armenians which took place in the Ottoman empire during 1915-1917 at the instigation of the ruling party C.U.P. (Committee Union and Progress), have been widely acknowledged as an act of genocide by both historians and genocide and holocaust specialists alike. When Raphael Lemkin coined the word ‘genocide’ in 19431, he spoke of these massacres as a seminal example of what genocide consists of. However, the refusal by successive Turkish governments to acknowledge these acts as genocide, in compliance with the widely accepted definition of this crime since the Convention of Human Rights of 1948, compels one to assess again the nature of the crimes committed, while looking at the current political implications of this denial. The present paper intends to do so using three main bodies of sources: recent declarations stemming from the international community with regard to the issue at stake; testimonies from foreign eye-witnesses and diplomats hold...
Knowledge and Acknowledgement in the Politics of Memory of the Armenian Genocide
Knowledge and Acknowledgement in the Politics of Memory of the Armenian Genocide, 2018
Is the Armenian Genocide a strictly historical matter? If that is the case, why is it still a topical issue, capable of causing diplomatic rows and heated debates? The short answer would be that the century old Armenian Genocide is much more than a historical question. It emerged as a political dilemma on the international arena at the San Stefano peace conference in 1878 and has remained as such into our days. The disparity between knowledge and acknowledgement, mainly ascribable to Turkey’s official denial of the genocide, has only heightened the politicization of the Armenian question. Thus, the memories of the WWI era refuse to be relegated to the pages of history but are rather perceived as a vivid presence. This is the result of the perpetual process of politics of memory. The politics of memory is an intricate and interdisciplinary negotiation, engaging many different actors in the society who have access to a wide range of resources and measures in order to achieve their goals. By following the Armenian question during the past century up to its Centennial Commemoration in 2015, this study aims to explain why and how the politics of memory of the Armenian Genocide has kept it as a topical issue in our days.
Intersubjective recognition of human rights abuses affirms them and exerts pressure to acknowledge them in international norms and institutions. It is in this way that the transnational memory of genocides, made part of the common lifeworld of humanity, can assert itself against the contrary interests of states and shape institutions and conduct in international affairs. Thus, human rights abuses do indeed foster the development of the international human rights regime. The Armenian Genocide, an unresolved and massive human rights abuse, contributed powerfully to the development of the current law on genocide and demonstrates how transnational memory, encapsulated in legal concepts, can transmit intersubjectively recognized norms of state conduct through time and institutions. In spite of the fact that there was no meaningful remedial action for the Armenian Genocide, and despite the fact that it is not been universally recognized and is to some extent the subject of dispute, the Armenian Genocide played a significant role in the development of the international law on genocide and, because it is still the subject of dispute, remains a focal point for discussion of the concept of genocide a century later. The Armenian Genocide offers evidence that memory of unresolved human rights abuses can drive the development of international norms, and the ways in which this historical case is remembered have played a constructive role in the development of the global human rights regime.