by Rupen Boyadjian,
student in social psychology, team leader of first Swiss lawsuit against denial of Armenian genocide, co-editor of Enteignet – Vertrieben – Ermordet. Beiträge zur Genozidforschung, Zurich 2004.

I am usually very hesitant to go to these kind of conferences, because I fear that one of the Turkish participants might deny the Armenian genocide, or that one of the non-Turkish participants might lend credit to some sort of civil war argument, and conclude that it is still unclear what happend in 1915 and beyond.

And I would like ot thank you all that this time my fear was unfounded. I  thank you for a great series of papers, and all the time and thought you have invested.

As for myself, I am always torn when it comes to the genocide. I would have preferred to spend an easy week-end at home, watching the football game between Switzerland and Turkey without having to think about sinister things. What I want is actually quite similar to what deniers want: I wish that the genocide had never happened – and sometimes I go so far as to wish I had not been born of Armenian parentage, and not having to carry this burden with me.

But unfortunately, wishing does not change facts, and now we come together to face and discuss the stark realities. And at this stage, when we do so, I feel there are – let me call them – „two invisible men“ in this room with us.

One is around the speakers of Armenian origin, clinging to their legs and arms, sitting on their shoulders, weighing them down.

The second panel was about the „Armenian catastrophe“. This designation is an attempt to extend a hand to the Turkish colleagues, or rather to the second invisible man, who stands right behind them, carrying a baseball bat.

The two invisible men leave important traces. Professor Kévorkian's paper was about the different sources on the genocide: first, he drew attention to the archives of the Young Turk party and the Teşkilat i Mahsusa, both supposedly lost or available only in 3 or 4 documents left over from the trials of the perpetrators in 1919/20; second, the collection of documents set out by the Turkish government. Then the foreign diplomat's reports; the missionaries; and finally the Armenian eye-witness accounts.

So, in the first place we have to cope with a mater of archives that are not available, and which could shed brighter light on the decisions and actions of the perpetrators. And in the last place sources which could shed more light on those same actions, and how they were experienced. And Kévorkian points out that the scholar who has given us probably the largest body of work on the issue, American-Armenian Vahakn Dadrian, does not make use of Armenian sources. This too, is the effect of the first invisible man: discounting, or at least deliberately minimizing, lest one is accused by deniers of „bias“, the importance of work by Armenians, and trying to confront the second invisible man by only using sources which would eventually be more acceptable to the Turkish government.

The two invisible men have thus left two enormous traces of invisibility: the absence of the perpetrator's archives and the non-use of victim's accounts.

And yet, Professor Calzolari tells us that such Armenian eye-witness-accounts do exist – but usually they are not translated, and mostly not even published. And Hülya Adak tells us that the same is true of Young-Turk leader's auto-biographies.

And now, with a „clin d'oeil“ to father Balakian's frequent use of Christian terminology (1),  I am going to speak about the double nature of the invisible man. For in fact he is only one. And he is one who is disturbing. His combined weight means whithholding one-self as an Armenian, especially an Armenian in Turkey, and being cautious, especially as a Turk in Turkey for fear of official Turkey, and non- or semi-official radically nationalist elements. Science needs visibility though, and a two-folded invisible man does cause problems.

Fortunately first steps are now being taken despite the heavy weight of the invisible man. Ayse Gül Altinay presented accounts of several Turkish Armenians or Turks with some Armenian ancestry (2).  She did not provide details of what exactly these people have experienced during the genocide or the details they have learned about it – and, am I right in assuming that in their books there were not many details either? (3)

Before the presentation of the books, Ayse Gül Altinay related how the Armenian issue is usually treated in Turkey: a war of theses, Armenian versus Turkish.

Yesterday, there was a football game between Turkey and Switzerland.  And I know that many Turks have no idea what it means to be confronted with genocide denial – and happily, neither do most Swiss for that matter. But I guess most will know what it means to lose a football game.

What if your team plays a game almost daily, and it always loses at least 2:0 (4)? And the games you would be seeing are not the usual football-games with established rules and a more or less neutral referee. You would, for example, see one of your players running alone to the goal and getting nastily fouled. The referee would not be whistling, there is no penalty. A player of the other team spits on one of yours: nothing happens, and the other team's player would be arrogantly grinning at your team's player. And the next day, papers aren't mentioning the incidents – rather triumphing about the victory, while putting down your team.

I know that the comparison with a football game is not very accurate. And yet, when it comes to the Armenian genocide, it is true that games are being played. And this fact alone is a scandal in the face of over a million victims. And if you consider all the nonsense and slander that is embodied in genocide denial, then the question of human dignity is raised.

And Professor Brumlik did this in a marvelous way. Human dignity is also at the center of the laws forbidding denial, justification or gross minimisation of genocide. And the human dignity of the victims – their memory and integrity, are also central to differentiate a relevant scientific debate from a malevolent propaganda-effort, as Professor Tanner has put forward in his talk.  I hope, Professor Berktay,  to having through this somehow switched on the flood-light on a more equitable „football-field“.

And while, as Hans-Lukas Kieser has suggested, other factors play an important role in the perception of a certain genocide: be it misguided notions of the genocide-concept itself, misguided Armenian nationalist ideas, or the shift in perceptions of the most influential of all genocide histories, the Holocaust-studies –  it is today, I feel, the wheight of the two-folded invisible man, which is the biggest obstacle to reconciling the two antagonistic, or rather separate national histories, as Gerayr Libaridian had defined the task in his talk.

(1) French version: Grigoris Balakian, Le golgotha Arménien. Berlin – Deir es-Zor, „Le cercle d'écrits caucasiens“ (ed.), La Ferté-Sous-Jouarre 2002 (vol. 1), 2004 (vol. 2). Balakian's account was in the center of Professor Valentina Calzolari's talk.
(2) Fethiye Çetin, Anneannem, Istanbul 2004 ; Takuhi Tovmasyan, Sofraniz Şen Olsun. Ninelerimin mutfağından damağımda, aklımda kalanlar, Istanbul 2004; Osman Köken (ed.), Sevgili Kardeşim: 100 Yıl Önce Türkiye'de Ermeniler (exhibition of pre-WWI post-cards), Istanbul 2005.
(3) I was not right. Altinay said that the books did contain a lot of details. Nevertheless, my point is to show there is an influence of the Turkish government's stance on scientific or other writing about the genocide. And there are certain boundaries. While in many cases, details of what happened can now be communicated, the conclusion that this constitutes genocide, is still „dangerous“. Genocide as a legal category, includes the notion of guilt, and punishment – and thus responsibility. And this is precisely what Turkish deniers want to go around. I should therefore precise my argument: as long as no finger is pointed at the guilty, and no consequences are asked for, it might be regarded as acceptable in a Turkish setting. The official policy of „let historians decide“, is a good expression of this: as long as the genocide is treated like an Egyptian mummy, it is somehow tolerated. As soon as questions like „was the guy murdered?“, „who is responsible?“, „does an actually living person/entity have any responsibility?“ are asked, then it becomes „sensitive“ and thus not tolerable anymore. The ongoing proceedings against Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk are somehow contrary to what I have just writtten. Pamuk said in an interview that one million Armenians and 30'000 Kurds were murdered. This is a totally legitimate statement whithin the margins of the proven facts – and he didn't even use the term genocide – and yet, he is accused of having vilified Turkdom. But of course, this show-trial against the internationally best known living Turkish author is intended at sending a sign to Turkey's intellectuals to better keep their hands off the Armenian and Kurdish issues: go write about flowers and sunsets!
(4) Berne, November 12, 2005. Switzerland won 2:0 in a (last-chance) game for the qualification to the World championships 2006, in Germany (football, i.e. Soccer). Turkey won the second game in Istanbul (November 16), 4:2. Because of the two Swiss goals „abroad“, which count more than „home-goals“, Switzerland qualified. After the game, attacks on Swiss players and officials were carried out by Turkish players (counter-attacks by Swiss players also occurred), officials and even security personnel. The results of an ensuing FIFA (International Football Association) investigation were still pending upon completion of this text. The manner by which the Turkish football-association, and at least in the beginning, the Media and Government, were treating the matter – amongst others: totally selective use of evidence, in order to blame the Swiss; conspiration theories – has very strong parallels to how the Armenian genocide is usually treated. A detailed study would be highly interesting in my view.