An encounter well attended, well needed

In a well-attended meeting at a central hotel in Yerevan, I thought I had found the best venue. Hosted by Civilitas, the event aimed to be an encounter of “humane dimensions.”  There, I addressed the curious crowd, together with my distinguished colleague, Boris Navasardian, chairman of the Yerevan Press Club.

In this context, although expectations have been raised before the symbolically loaded soccer match between Turkey and Armenia, the mood remains rather unchanged. People seem insensitive to the expectations, anxieties and fears of the “other.” It is not the states or political decision-makers, it is simply the lack of sensitivities of common people vs common people.

Suspicions are there. This is the characteristic of the Armenian side: a deep skepticism over the attempts at “normalization.” The voices I heard are, as it were, seeking a deeper, vicious agenda, a well-worked-out conspiracy to cement an already implemented plan, to keep history in eternal darkness and bring “the other” to his knees. It is very obvious from the discourse that the issue has been very divisive in society, and it is being irresponsibly used by some opposition leaders.

As Navasardian pointed out, the situation is different in Turkey. Overwhelmed by other major issues, the “normalization” process has lost its weight amongst the public, and perhaps this very fact helps to keep the support for the process at around 70 percent. Yet, the government will face a confrontation in Parliament, but this, in my judgment, is less problematic than the one its Armenian counterpart will face.

Still, there is an important issue. It is the surprising element of reasoning that I faced when talking candidly to the crowd in Yerevan: it is the perception that leads them to conclude that, because it is a plan designed to appease the Turkish side, the majority of Turks must therefore have been supporting it.

The truth is, many of them living here simply want to lend support to the government to reduce the problems with a neighbor by opening the borders. Many of them still feel alienated from the politically important dimensions such as the Azeri concerns and how to deal with history.

Nothing less, nothing more.

People's minds work in “unmysterious” ways. Some of the Armenians felt it is inconceivable that Turkey does not recognize 1915 as genocide. They look rather aghast when you remind them of the fact that there is actually another public which has other notions on history, however discussable they are.

Boris and I had a fine meeting, although the exercise of the talks must be done with very correct terms. Any wrong usage of them promises an immediate deadlock, a mental block, just as any good usage creates amazingly positive effects.

I told the people that I almost never use the term “genocide” when talking about the extreme suffering of the Ottoman Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. I reminded them actually how broad its definition is in the 1948 convention and gave the example of “only” 8,000 men, Bosnian Muslims, slaughtered overnight by Serbians.

I added that the term has only to do with the mind; and what we need the Armenians to understand, at least try, is that the viciously inflicted pain, the mass suffering, as a tragedy must first be felt in the conscience of the other, the Turks. What, after all, is the meaning of a recognition, which has no echo at all within a public, which were kept away from the dark parts of the truth?  A European attendee at the meeting told me, in approval, that what may be new with such an approach of “talking about the other” is that many Armenians feel a new way out to meet and talk in different terms than just the imposed ones, and be introduced to the nuances that even “the other” experienced some pain when an empire collapsed.