In 1994-1997, Chief Advisor to the President of the Republic of Armenia, Ambassador on Special Assignments, historian Jirayr Liparityan said regarding the article published on December 21, 2021 titled “A Few Words About ‘Critics,’” “Those critics did not make a corresponding analysis of any of my works, they did not present an alternative analysis about them. This refers to my last volume entitled “Armenia-Turkey,” my co-authored White Paper on the recent Karabakh war, and interviews. There, the reader will find a comprehensive and systematic analysis and substantiation of the issues that concern us, free from ideological divisions and political considerations. ” Aravot asked Turkologist and Dean of YSU Faculty of Oriental Studies Ruben Melkonyan to express an opinion on the mentioned consideration.
Ruben Melkonyan first mentioned, “I was obliged to read that book by Jirayr Liparityan, which is also based on his activities and participation, as a specialist. But as I read (he particularly says a lot that they do not read, but criticize) I came across many mistakes, many incorrect formulations and formulations that contradict his statement. He says that he has refrained from propaganda and political assessments, while he has used terms that can not be considered scientific, for example, “not one inch of land,” which I do not know what a scientific term is. The same with “Armenian Cause-ism.”
Turkologist and Dean of YSU Faculty of Oriental Studies Ruben Melkonyan
I know that it is a political term circulated by a certain force, and not a scientific one. So, there is a misunderstanding: did Jirayr Liparityan, a scientist, expert or a former official and a person who hates certain political forces, write that book?” In addition to the above, according to Ruben Melkonyan, there is an obvious lack of knowledge of Turkey in the book authored by Jirayr Liparityan or the problem of presenting the facts incorrectly. “In particular, it is mentioned that after the genocide, Armenians remained in Turkey and were able to live normally. This is completely wrong, because after the genocide there were very few Armenians left in Turkey, who were subjected to various persecutions throughout the history of the Republic of Turkey, and they were destroyed during any manifestation of freedom: clergy, journalists, politicians… the author’s other observation regarding Turkey is that we present Turkey as a threat, and in fact it is not so. He substantiates that during the first Artsakh War, Turkey did not enter Armenia; that is, it did not attack Armenia. Jirayr Liparityan, however, ignores the statements of the two Turkish presidents, who brought the troops to the first level of combat readiness and brought them closer to the border.
Turkish President Turgut Ozal was announcing that a couple of bombs should be dropped on Yerevan, that Armenia should feel Turkish teeth, and so on. Liparityan ignores why Turkey could not attack Armenia. He presents it as a manifestation of Turkey’s good will, not as a consequence of the geopolitical situation, in particular, as a result of Russian Marshal Shaposhnikov’s statement that if the Turkish army crosses the Armenian-Turkish border, we will end up in the Third World War. I have many other observations on the topic, which I would like to present comprehensively and in writing, especially when Jirayr Liparityan constantly mentions that his book has not received a response. As a Turkologist, I will try to present it, because there are elementary mistakes that will be obvious even at a superficial level of knowledge of Turkish history.”
Read also
We also quoted the following statement of Jirayr Liparityan. “When I was recently asked if Turkey and Azerbaijan are a threat to Armenia, I answered ‘no.’ I meant the definition of danger that the people who asked me and their directors use; that is, that the “Turk” will come and destroy us at the first opportunity… ”
This is how Ruben Melkonyan reacted: “It is the thesis from the past few decades that has hardened now. This is also wrong, because during the war in 2020, we saw that when unarmed Armenians came under Azerbaijani control, the first thing an Azeris wanted to do was kill an Armenian. Liparityan can watch many videos of the massacre of Armenians or scenes of executions, when, for example, elderly Armenians are killed and beheaded by Azeris in 2020. What is this, if not the Azeri-Turkish instinct to kill or destroy Armenians as soon as they see Armenians? Second, Turkish opinion polls even show that a large part of the Turkish population does not even consider Armenians as neighbors. This is an unchanging picture in decades of opinion polls. Hatred towards Armenians in Turkish society has an institutional nature. I say this not because I am Armenian, but because as a Turkologist, I am talking about the objective reality. The speeches of Turkish state officials, from Ataturk to the current President Erdogan, are full of racist statements against Armenians. What Ataturk said to Armenians a hundred years ago, Erdogan says now: ‘Armenians are a terrorist people.’
Therefore, anti-Armenianism is obvious in the policy and history of Turkey. In addition, this is in their literature. Has Mr. Liparityan read the works of famous figures of Turkish literature, in which Armenians are presented as negative heroes, liars, people to be killed? After all, literature is a manifestation of the national mentality. I think Mr. Liparityan speaks Turkish. Didn’t he look at the Turkish proverbs and phrases about Armenians, which contain insults and racism? You know, I do not want to say that everything is very bad or there is nothing positive, but the main function of a scientist is to have non-categorical assessments and be able to look at the situation comprehensively.
Now Mr. Liparityan presents a brilliant, positive, and very good image of Turkey and says that the following statements are wrong: ‘the impression is that Turkey wants to attack, to massacre us,’ ‘Azerbaijan is a threat’… He says that we have a victim complex and it seems to us that if a Turk appears, the Turk will kill us. Mr. Liparityan makes completely wrong and categorical formulations. I have not seen in his book that he leaves room to think that there may be other phenomena and opinions. He makes categorical assessments that we do not know Turkey very well, that Turkey is not so much a threat and we should have dialogue with Turkey. Yes, there should be dialogue, but if Turkey sees that dialogue only at the cost of stable preconditions for it, it is no longer a dialogue, but a dictation. Turkey dictates to you what to do.”
Luiza Sukiasyan
