By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach – Special to the Mirror-Spectator
COLOGNE, Germany — As the New Year opened, several German cities hosted events commemorating the centenary of the genocide, many of them scheduled to coincide with the eighth anniversary on January 19 of the assassination of Hrant Dink. Those in Berlin and Frankfurt attracted large crowds of Germans and Armenians, as well as Turks, Kurds and many other minorities.
At a memorial convened in Cologne on January 25, one central issue discussed was the need for official recognition of the genocide, not only on the part of the authorities in Turkey but also in Germany, which was allied with the Young Turks in the first World War and today is home to the largest Turkish community abroad.
Hrant Dink was targeted, as Archbishop Karekin Bekdjian noted in his opening remarks, because he “named genocide by its name.” The assassin, who shouted that he had “killed the unbeliever,” may well sit in prison but after eight years those who ordered the murder “are still in darkness.” The Armenian Diocesan Primate expressed his hope that those ultimately responsible would be identified and punished, a demand echoed by other speakers throughout the event. Whether or not that will occur is uncertain; according to Hayko Bagdat, editor of the Turkish daily Taraf, who gave an update on the trail proceedings. In his view the Turkish establishment is seeking to exploit the case for political reasons, launching accusations now at Ergenekon, now at other groups vying for power, now at the Gülen movement.
A further factor has to do with the official positions held by many of those who should be called to testify and who are currently protected by law. That, he suggested, may change.
Whatever the immediate developments on the legal front, it is undeniable that the forces behind Hrant Dink’s murder failed in their aims.
“They hoped to silence him,” the Archbishop said, “but an opposition came into being which has given millions of people a voice,” not only Armenians, but all minorities in whose behalf Dink fought. He concluded with an appeal for all to join forces, becoming one voice, for justice, whether Armenian, German, Kurd, Assyrian or other.
Over the past weeks members of this multiethnic opposition have taken to the streets, participating in commemorations in seven cities, which, as lawyer Ilias Uyar reported, were largely organized by Armenians of the younger generation.
The unifying slogan has been “We are all Hrant Dink! We are all Armenians!” as was the case immediately after his death. For Turkish-German author Dogan Akhanli, such open demonstrations proved that “the institutions are incapable of stifling discussion of the Genocide. The aims of the assassins have found no support in the population,” he said, and referred as well to the response of the French people following the murder of 12 members of the Charlie Hebdo staff just weeks ago.

Facing the Past: Germany a Model?
Those fighting for Turkish recognition of the genocide often cite Germany as a model, referring to post-war Germany’s acknowledgement of responsibility for the Holocaust. Journalist and author Navid Kermani, originally from Iran, stressed in this regard the importance of Willy Brandt’s falling to his knees at the Warsaw ghetto monument in 1970. Although then-Chancellor Brant, he said, “was personally not responsible, indeed, was an anti-Nazi,” he made this spontaneous, highly symbolical gesture, and it was “liberating.” He added that, “had Germany not recognized its guilt and not acknowledged its own history, the country would not have gained the standing it has in the world.” Germany’s actions “in how it dealt with the Holocaust are exemplary,” said Raffi Kantian, head of the German-Armenian Society. This makes it all the more regrettable that the government today seems to be backsliding, as far as the Armenian case is concerned. Asked in a round table discussion about a recent inquiry posed in writing to the government in this regard, Kantian said the response was truly disappointing.
On December 12, 2014, members of the leftist party Die Linke presented a so-called “small question,” a written inquiry about Germany’s stance towards events around the centenary, which expressed the desire that the government participate. The government responded in writing on January 13 and issued a statement on January 21, 2015. In the latter it said it was considering participation in memorial events for the centenary of the “massacres and expulsion” of the Armenians, to which it had been invited by representatives of the Central Council of Armenians in Germany, the German-Armenian Society; the Diocese and the Armenian government. However, it had “no plans at present to participate;” it added that it welcomed all initiatives “that serve the further working through of historical events from 1915/1916” and considered this to be above all the task of the countries involved, Armenia and Turkey. It said it respected the “courageous steps” taken by the two towards normalization and hoped they would continue, also with the historical commission. As for categorizing these events as genocide, the government “referred to” the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, which entered into effect in 1951 and, has been valid for the Federal Republic of Germany since February 22, 1955. Then, the conclusion: “It does not apply retrospectively.” To appreciate the disappointment generated by this reply, one must consider that in 2005, the Bundestag (German parliament) had adopted a resolution which, though avoiding the “G-word” in hopes of not blocking Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, in effect described the events as genocide. Now, as Kantian explained, to claim one can’t use the word because the massacres and deportations occurred before the term became legally binding is “ridiculous;” the term “Holocaust” was not current at the time of the Nazi extermination camps either. Yet, he noted, all German foreign ministers since 2004 on visiting Yerevan have paid their tribute at the genocide monument — which one can interpret as recognition. He concluded by urging Germany, whose wartime archives document its role as Ottoman Turkey’s ally, also to acknowledge its co-responsibility for the genocide.
Another painful example of capitulation to Turkish pressures is the history textbook debate, which speakers addressed in a round table. In Germany it is on the level of the federal states that public school curricula are drafted.
Regrettably, only one such state, Brandenburg, introduced the Armenian genocide in history classes, and that met opposition from the Turkish lobby. The same 2005 Bundestag resolution mentioned above, Uyar stressed, stipulated that federal states should include genocides in their history curricula. Since German archive materials contain the facts, he said, “it is impossible to assert that this is an issue between Armenia and Turkey.” The fact that the UN Convention on Genocide is also a convention on “prevention,” and that “denial is the last phase of genocide,” makes it all the more urgent to include it in history courses.

The voice of humanity
Germany’s special responsibility was illustrated also by journalist and author Günter Wallraff, who recalled an encounter he had had in 1964 with Armin T. Wegner. Wegner, as a German soldier and medic in World War I, had witnessed the genocide and documented it in photographs. Wallraff cited an open letter Wegner wrote to Woodrow Wilson in 1919, published in a German paper, in which he described the massacres and photographs. Wegner wrote, “This document is a request. In it the tongues of thousands speak.” He appealed to Wilson directly: “If you, Mr. President, have indeed made the sublime idea of championing oppresses nations the guiding principle of your policy, you will not fail to perceive that even in these words a mighty voice speaks, the only voice that has the right to be heard at all times – the voice of humanity.” Wegner also tried to intervene later with a 1933 letter to Hitler, demanding tolerance of Jews.
In closing remarks, Akhanli said, one cannot resurrect the victims, but one must name the names of the perpetrators. Those who display solidarity with the perpetrators render themselves guilty, he said. “Who are we,” he asked, “after a hundred years, if Hrant Dink is killed, how can we say, ‘let the historians decide’?” It is the falsified history that is killing. For Akhanli, the German experience in dealing with the darkest chapters of its own past history is very important for Turkey. “We need a revolution for remembrance,” he said, and for all victims.
Such acknowledgement of past genocides, including those that many immigrants to Germany have escaped from, should reinforce not only German identity, but what he called a “transnational identity.” GERMANY, from page 1 who gave an update on the trail proceedings. In his view the Turkish establishment is seeking to exploit the case for political reasons, launching accusations now at Ergenekon, now at other groups vying for power, now at the Gülen movement.
A further factor has to do with the official positions held by many of those who should be called to testify and who are currently protected by law. That, he suggested, may change.
Whatever the immediate developments on the legal front, it is undeniable that the forces behind Hrant Dink’s murder failed in their aims.
“They hoped to silence him,” the Archbishop said, “but an opposition came into being which has given millions of people a voice,” not only Armenians, but all minorities in whose behalf Dink fought. He concluded with an appeal for all to join forces, becoming one voice, for justice, whether Armenian, German, Kurd, Assyrian or other.
Over the past weeks members of this multiethnic opposition have taken to the streets, participating in commemorations in seven cities, which, as lawyer Ilias Uyar reported, were largely organized by Armenians of the younger generation.
The unifying slogan has been “We are all Hrant Dink! We are all Armenians!” as was the case immediately after his death. For Turkish-German author Dogan Akhanli, such open demonstrations proved that “the institutions are incapable of stifling discussion of the Genocide. The aims of the assassins have found no support in the population,” he said, and referred as well to the response of the French people following the murder of 12 members of the Charlie Hebdo staff just weeks ago.
Facing the Past: Germany a Model? Those fighting for Turkish recognition of the genocide often cite Germany as a model, referring to post-war Germany’s acknowledgement of responsibility for the Holocaust. Journalist and author Navid Kermani, originally from Iran, stressed in this regard the importance of Willy Brandt’s falling to his knees at the Warsaw ghetto monument in 1970. Although then-Chancellor Brant, he said, “was personally not responsible, indeed, was an anti-Nazi,” he made this spontaneous, highly symbolical gesture, and it was “liberating.” He added that, “had Germany not recognized its guilt and not acknowledged its own history, the country would not have gained the standing it has in the world.” Germany’s actions “in how it dealt with the Holocaust are exemplary,” said Raffi Kantian, head of the German-Armenian Society. This makes it all the more regrettable that the government today seems to be backsliding, as far as the Armenian case is concerned. Asked in a round table discussion about a recent inquiry posed in writing to the government in this regard, Kantian said the response was truly disappointing.
On December 12, 2014, members of the leftist party Die Linke presented a so-called “small question,” a written inquiry about Germany’s stance towards events around the centenary, which expressed the desire that the government participate. The government responded in writing on January 13 and issued a statement on January 21, 2015. In the latter it said it was considering participation in memorial events for the centenary of the “massacres and expulsion” of the Armenians, to which it had been invited by representatives of the Central Council of Armenians in Germany, the German-Armenian Society; the Diocese and the Armenian government. However, it had “no plans at present to participate;” it added that it welcomed all initiatives “that serve the further working through of historical events from 1915/1916” and considered this to be above all the task of the countries involved, Armenia and Turkey. It said it respected the “courageous steps” taken by the two towards normalization and hoped they would continue, also with the historical commission. As for categorizing these events as genocide, the government “referred to” the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, which entered into effect in 1951 and, has been valid for the Federal Republic of Germany since February 22, 1955. Then, the conclusion: “It does not apply retrospectively.” To appreciate the disappointment generated by this reply, one must consider that in 2005, the Bundestag (German parliament) had adopted a resolution which, though avoiding the “G-word” in hopes of not blocking Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, in effect described the events as genocide. Now, as Kantian explained, to claim one can’t use the word because the massacres and deportations occurred before the term became legally binding is “ridiculous;” the term “Holocaust” was not current at the time of the Nazi extermination camps either. Yet, he noted, all German foreign ministers since 2004 on visiting Yerevan have paid their tribute at the genocide monument — which one can interpret as recognition. He concluded by urging Germany, whose wartime archives document its role as Ottoman Turkey’s ally, also to acknowledge its co-responsibility for the genocide.
Another painful example of capitulation to Turkish pressures is the history textbook debate, which speakers addressed in a round table. In Germany it is on the level of the federal states that public school curricula are drafted.
Regrettably, only one such state, Brandenburg, introduced the Armenian genocide in history classes, and that met opposition from the Turkish lobby. The same 2005 Bundestag resolution mentioned above, Uyar stressed, stipulated that federal states should include genocides in their history curricula. Since German archive materials contain the facts, he said, “it is impossible to assert that this is an issue between Armenia and Turkey.” The fact that the UN Convention on Genocide is also a convention on “prevention,” and that “denial is the last phase of genocide,” makes it all the more urgent to include it in history courses.
The voice of humanity Germany’s special responsibility was illustrated also by journalist and author Günter Wallraff, who recalled an encounter he had had in 1964 with Armin T. Wegner. Wegner, as a German soldier and medic in World War I, had witnessed the genocide and documented it in photographs. Wallraff cited an open letter Wegner wrote to Woodrow Wilson in 1919, published in a German paper, in which he described the massacres and photographs. Wegner wrote, “This document is a request. In it the tongues of thousands speak.” He appealed to Wilson directly: “If you, Mr. President, have indeed made the sublime idea of championing oppresses nations the guiding principle of your policy, you will not fail to perceive that even in these words a mighty voice speaks, the only voice that has the right to be heard at all times – the voice of humanity.” Wegner also tried to intervene later with a 1933 letter to Hitler, demanding tolerance of Jews.
In closing remarks, Akhanli said, one cannot resurrect the victims, but one must name the names of the perpetrators. Those who display solidarity with the perpetrators render themselves guilty, he said. “Who are we,” he asked, “after a hundred years, if Hrant Dink is killed, how can we say, ‘let the historians decide’?” It is the falsified history that is killing. For Akhanli, the German experience in dealing with the darkest chapters of its own past history is very important for Turkey. “We need a revolution for remembrance,” he said, and for all victims.
Such acknowledgement of past genocides, including those that many immigrants to Germany have escaped from, should reinforce not only German identity, but what he called a “transnational identity.”

Tags:Genocide Centenary, Hrant Dink, Uyar , Navid Kermani, Armin T. Wegner, Dogan Akhanli, Günter Wallraff,, Archbishop Karekin Bekdjian, Hayko Bagdat, Taraf,