"The Armenian Genocide"
Ken A. Bode
April 28, 2006
"The Armenian Genocide," which aired on most PBS stations on April 17 is a powerful indictment of the Ottoman Empire for its forced relocation and systemic effort to eliminate its Armenian population. Produced for Oregon Public Television by Andrew Goldberg of Two Cats Productions, the hour-long documentary is an impressive gathering of historical material interpreted by knowledgeable and respected scholars, leading to the inescapable conclusion that in 1915, with the outbreak of World War I, there was a brutal and methodical campaign to slaughter and destroy Armenians, directed by the Turkish authorities of the time.
That the present government of Turkey does not subscribe to these conclusions is well known. The official Turkish position is that local Armenians supported the invading Russian army and also engaged in sporadic uprisings against Ottoman authorities. Indeed, many Armenian Christians were killed, but so were many Muslims, in what Turkey insists was a civil war. There were deportations, Turkey admits, but no centrally directed genocide. Genocide denial is the official position of the Turkish government today, backed by that country's criminal code.
In the documentary, the Turkish view of history is represented by the head of the Turkish Historical Society, with testimony by Gunduz Aktan, the former Turkish ambassador and by Prof. Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, whose long-standing view is that there was no centrally directed genocide. In a pre-broadcast letter to CPB, David Saltzman, counsel to the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, raised a number of questions about PBS motives and responsibilities in promoting "a single version of the truth." Despite the presence of voices that support his country's position, the present Turkish ambassador, Nabi Sensoy, issued a post-broadcast complaint saying that the show was "blatantly one-sided" and reflected "a self-serving political agenda by Armenian American activists."
On the central question of whether there was a genocide, the documentary agrees with the view represented by the International Association of Genocide Scholars that, yes, there was. Samantha Power addresses this issue in her 2002 Pulitzer prize winning book, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide." Power devotes the opening chapter to a review of the treatment of the Armenians in 1915, citing reports from the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau who cabled Washington on July 10:
"Persecutions of Armenians assuming unprecedented proportions. Reports from widely scattered districts indicate systematic attempt to uproot peaceful Armenian populations and through arbitrary arrests, terrible tortures, whole-sale expulsions and deportations from one end of the Empire to the other accompanied by frequent instances of rape, pillage, and murder, turning into massacre, to bring destruction on them. These measures are not in response to popular or fanatical demand but are purely arbitrary and directed from Constantinople in the name of military necessity, often in districts where no military operations are likely to take place."
Morgenthau warned Washington, "there seems to be a systematic plan to crush the Armenian race." In 1915, the New York Times devoted 145 stories to the Turkish horrors, and former President Theodore Roosevelt joined in the unsuccessful effort to persuade the American government to denounce the Ottoman Empire for the atrocities. Nothing happened and eventually Amb. Morgenthau resigned in despair.
In 1915, genocide was a crime without a name. Over the next three decades, a Polish Jew named Raphael Lemkin conducted a one-man campaign to create a universal jurisdiction whereby instigators or perpetrators of attempts to wipe out national, ethnic or religious groups would become an international crime that could be punished anywhere, like slavery or piracy. Exhibit A in Lemkin's campaign was the Armenian episode. Lemkin appears in the documentary talking about the genocide against Armenians.
A Number of Questions
Andrew Goldberg's documentary pulls no punches on the question of whether there was a genocide in 1915, and Coby Atlas, PBS senior vice president, told the Washington Post that PBS considers the genocide to be "settled history." However, the PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler, wrote a thoughtful analysis ending as a skeptic on that point. Perhaps, mused Getler, over time there will be "greater agreement and acknowledgment about what happened in the years around 1915 than there has been until now." He adds that there is simply not the same kind of evidence for genocide in Turkey as historians have assembled to document the Holocaust during W.W.II. Getler concludes:
"Furthermore, the action is strongly denied and refuted by the country involved, Turkey, and there are historians, as has been shown, who question not whether terrible things happened but whether there is enough evidence to use that powerful descriptor, Genocide."
This evident disagreement between a top programming executive and the network's ombudsman affords greater relevance to the series of pre-broadcast questions submitted by David Saltzman on behalf of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. Saltzman inquired how PBS and CPB achieved the right to proclaim definite positions on historic controversies. By what standards, he asks, are these judgments made? What exactly is the PBS position on the Armenian genocide, and by what process was this position adopted? Given Mr. Getler's doubts about whether genocide occurred, these are good questions.
In the opinion of Andrew Goldberg, the documentary producer, unwillingness by the PBS ombudsman to apply the word genocide means, in effect, that Getler chose the Turkish side. "If you don't use that word, you are enabling denial," says Goldberg.
This brings us to the PBS decision to add a post-program roundtable, "Armenian Genocide: Exploring the Issues." The discussion was taped at National Geographic studios in Washington, D.C., and moderated by NPR's Scott Simon. Consistent with the PBS position on "settled history," the objective of the panel was to "explore more deeply the question of why the Turkish government and its supporters continue to reject the genocide label."
The very existence of this after-show generated considerable controversy, including hundreds of e-mails on both sides and an on-line petition against the discussion that drew thousands of signatures. Predictably, Armenians opposed the panel discussion on grounds that it would dilute the firm conclusions of the documentary. Turks supported it as another opportunity to cast the events of 1915 as something short of genocide.
Perhaps the most unfortunate part of the agitation was that several members of Congress got involved in urging PBS not to air the panel discussion. As one party to the documentary put it, "They control the appropriations. There is an implicit threat in their intervention."
The panelists chosen to explore the issues in the after-show included two scholars representing the Armenian side, Peter Balakian, author of "The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response," and Taner Akcam, a professor from the University of Minnesota. Both were featured as witnesses in the documentary, Balakian with credits as an editorial consultant and writer. Representing the Turkish view were Professor Justin McCarthy from the University of Louisville and Turkish professor Omer Turan.
Organized as it was, the panel amounted to a quasi-academic version of "Crossfire," with Balakian aggressively accusing McCarthy of being a paid agent of the Turkish government. Omer Turan's facility with English was so limited that the moderator, Scott Simon, admitted at one point that he was lost. All in all, very little was accomplished by this panel. That opinion was echoed by programmers in many PBS venues who decided not to broadcast the panel or to do so at 3:00 or 5:00 a.m.
This is not to say that the idea of an after-show panel was a bad one. This one did not work, but it may serve as a valuable lesson for the future. The group should not have included members who already had their say in the preceding documentary, and care should have been taken to be sure that all participants had an adequate facility with English.
With issues as deeply controversial as those treated in "The Armenian Genocide," it should be regular policy for PBS to sponsor and pay for a panel of reputable, independent scholars able to step back and offer intelligent perspective and commentary on what the viewers have just watched. If the experts are chosen wisely, it can only add to PBS adhering to the requirements of fairness and balance. Then, when PBS arranges for an after-show, it should assure the quality of the product and stand behind it with strong encouragement that affiliate stations run the panel discussion immediately following the documentary.
Finally, there is the matter of funding. At the beginning and end of the documentary lengthy credits reveal that nearly all the support for this project came from foundations, families or individuals with Armenian surnames. PBS has assured its viewers that all donors were properly vetted, though who knows what that actually means? Full transparency is important, and the list does convey the unfortunate impression that the documentary, "The Armenian Genocide," was paid for by one side of the argument.
Public skepticism about our business is so great that PBS should be cognizant of impressions. For example, when KCET in Los Angeles--home to one of the largest Armenian populations in America -- decided not to air the Goldberg documentary, it prompted this response from KCET viewer Ruth Blandon:
"The word on the street is that you've been paid off by people interested and invested in maintaining silence about the genocide. Turkish money, perhaps? Republican money? Someone else's money? The word is out.
"There have already been many murmurs about corruption at PBS within a different context. I don't understand your programming choices which only serve to add fuel to the fire. And I hope you reconsider your poor choice not to air the Goldberg documentary as well as who your audience is.
"Shame on you."
My conclusion is that this was an excellent documentary, well supported with historical fact and expert witnesses. It raised vital issues that the nation of Turkey remains unwilling to deal with, because, as Samantha Power suggests in the program, to acknowledge genocide would put that nation in the sorry company of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. The contrary opinion of the ombudsman Mr. Getler leaves PBS in a fog of ambivalence.