The Four-Day “Genocide Studies Week” Concluded with a Discussion on “Rethinking Genocide in the 21st Century” (Photos)

The discussion was moderated by editor and host Tatevik Baghdasaryan and featured a distinguished panel of experts: Turkish historian and genocide scholar Taner Akçam; Ruben Safrastyan, Turkologist, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, and Advisor to the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RA NAS; Vahram Ter-Matevosyan, Professor at the American University of Armenia; Ruben Melkonyan, Dean of the Faculty of Oriental Studies at YSU; and political scientist Hovsep Babayan.

In her opening remarks, Baghdasaryan noted that beyond denial and refutation, Turkey continues its genocidal policy, most recently, through its involvement in the 44-day war in Artsakh.

Turkologist Ruben Melkonyan emphasized that genocidal thinking remains active in Turkey today, manifesting in both its leadership and symbols. “Many of the Young Turks became the first leaders of the Turkish Republic. The first three presidents were ideological heirs. Their glorification continues to this day and has even influenced Azerbaijan. The occupation of Artsakh was celebrated in the name of Enver Pasha, Aliyev publicly praised his legacy, and one of the first renamed streets in Stepanakert now bears his name. This isn't just continuity, it's a reaffirmation.”

Melkonyan added that Armenia’s current state policy not only fails to support Genocide recognition efforts but actually hinders them, especially with its suggestion that modern-day Turkey has changed.

Vahram Ter-Matevosyan proposed focusing on educational reform as part of the reinterpretation of genocide.  

“We need to rethink how we teach about the Armenian Genocide in schools and universities. There are very few structured programs and a clear methodological gap. Meanwhile, Turkey is expanding its diplomatic network and spreading denialist narratives globally.”

Ruben Safrastyan noted that Turkey’s policies toward Artsakh are a continuation of its historical genocidal agenda. 

 “Atatürk viewed the Armenian presence as a geopolitical obstacle. The elimination of Artsakh in 2020 echoed this belief. But we must also remember the fierce resistance of genocide survivors, mothers and relatives who fought with their bare hands. And let’s not forget the establishment of the First Republic in 1918. These stories must be part of how we reinterpret the genocide.”

Taner Akçam, the keynote guest of the event, emphasized that after U.S. President Joe Biden’s official recognition, the Armenian Genocide is no longer just a political issue but a recognized historical fact. 

 “Recognition will only come within Turkey when democratic forces rise. Justice cannot exist in an authoritarian regime. After Hrant Dink’s assassination, democratic movements began to gain ground in Turkey. The state still denies the genocide, but its ideological foundation has weakened.”

Ruben Safrastyan responded that Akçam’s optimism may be misplaced: “Even average Turkish citizens today echo the official state ideology. Turkey is far from ready to admit guilt.”

Akçam agreed that denial remains official policy and warned that such denial creates conditions for the repetition of genocide. Ter-Matevosyan echoed the concern, stating that in today’s authoritarian Turkey, discussions about the Armenian Genocide are virtually impossible. “Most of the activists who once gathered in Taksim Square are now either in prison or have fled the country,” he said.

At the end of the discussion, Newmag’s director Artak Aleksanyan asked the panel which books about the genocide should be translated next. Taner Akçam recommended Dirk Moses’s “Problems of Genocide”, as well as academic journals focused on genocide studies and proceedings from international conferences.