Peace and Conflict Studies - Spring 2014
Peace and Conflict Studies Volume 21, Number 1 72 many ways, the Armenian homeland of the diaspora no longer exists. In that sense Armenian diasporan longing for “homeland” may be, particularly for the older, original diasporan communities formed immediately after the genocide, a longing for both a place and time before genocide. The genocide’s other significant and long-reaching consequence is the Turkish denial, described as “the most consistent, strident, and elaborate state-organized attempt to conceal a record of past atrocities” (Cohen, 2001 p. 134). During and after the genocide, the Young Turk government, and each consecutive Turkish government, claimed to be innocent of any wrongdoing. They institutionalised an official policy of denial that began in tandem with the genocide and continues through today (Balakian, 2003, epilogue). In Turkey, article 301 of the Turkish penal code makes it a federal crime to mention the unrecognized genocide because it is an insult to “Turkishness” (Alayarian, 2008, p. 137). Although the word “genocide” did not exist until World War II, witnesses and international media described the state-planned massacres using the same terminology that would come to define the crime (Balakian, 2003, p. xix). Despite this, Turkey maintains its denial, and “truths that were certain at the time … were transformed into speculation, rumours, and uncertainties” (Cohen, 2001, p. 134). Denial is a typical criminal strategy to “promote forgetting” (Herman in Balakian 2003, p. 373). Prior to the 1970s, the denial was passive (Balakian, 2003, p. 379; Hovannisian, G., 2010, pp. 96, 114), but it has since become increasingly widespread, systematic and well-funded (Theriault, 2001). The Turkish government fuels the denial internationally by political manipulation and financial incentive. Through these means it has even gained the support of some academics (Hovannisian, R., 1997). Denial has been described as the final phase of genocide and the desecration of historical memory (Hovannisian, R., 1999). Framed in this sense, the Armenian genocide has not officially ended, but is still actively carried on by Turkish government officials a century later. The individuals who died – often after suffering malicious violence including torture and rape (Balakian, (2003[1918]) and (Sarafin 2000[1916]) document the extreme violence employed, a typical aspect of genocide), and their centuries of cultural existence in the Ottoman Empire, are still under attack. This continued denial prevents Armenians from moving on in any way from the genocide. Diasporan Armenians advocate for recognition of the genocide often more fervently than Armenian nationals, who have been forced to move on in some ways due to their political realities (Hovannisian, G., 2010; Judah, 2012). For example, when diasporan Raffi Hovannisian, an Armenian American, served as foreign
Made with FlippingBook
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDE4MDg=