Interviewer:    Yes, gentleman.

Male Speaker:    Dr. Taspinar, thank you very much for the very interesting presentation. I had a question, so and it regards the way that you frame the interaction game between these two excerpts. You said that Sagsyan accepting the question mark was a compromise and there has been basically no counterpart of this compromise on the Turkish side. Well one could definitely frame the game a bit differently and say that there are two nationalistic methods and Turkey has thrown more steps technically, well with accepting the formation of a commission has thrown a step towards the deconstruction of this method and Armenia has been slower to throw that step which would put the burden of reciprocation not on the Turkish but on the Armenian side. So isn’t the framing of the issue here important? Thank you.

Interviewer:    I don’t follow exactly the logic because Turkey basically for a long time argued that what happened in 1915 was just a massacre. Even Turkish documents refer to the fact that 200 to 300,000 Armenians were killed during these deportations. So there is a Turkish acceptance of what happened as a massacre. What Turkey does not accept is that it’s a genocide, that there’s an intention to annihilate the Armenian people and Turkey basically wants the context to be part of the discussion. Therefore, what Turkey always wanted was a discussion on this matter, to get its own side to be heard but 95% of academia accepts that what happened in 1915 was genocide, especially if we are to call much minor killings, massacres in, during the history of the 20th century as genocide. For instance, if regard the call what happened in Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslims were killed by the Serbian army a genocide, what happened in 1894 or 1895 just in [IB] where during basically five days 20,000 Armenians were killed itself is a genocide. Or what happened in the Albuquerque, even before 1915, something the Turks don’t even talk about. We always focus on 1915 but we forget all the killings that happened in1894 or 1895, 1896. Those age could be called genocides. So therefore, basically Armenia is showing compromise. It’s basically saying, okay, if you really want to discussed what happened, we’ll give it a shot, we agree to this, which is a huge step if you’re an Armenian. If your whole identity is based on genocide, if the whole existence of basically the diaspora in the United States, in France, in Australia is based on this idea and it’s not a myth, for them it’s the reality. That’s the reason why they’re there. These myths that we can refer to…

Male Speaker:    We are looking for the term that that was not genocide.

Interviewee:    Yes but I mean for them, the perception is that it’s not a myth. They have parents killed, they have their families. I mean for Turkey, let’s not forget that Turkey after all emerged victorious. Turkey established a state turkey defeated the enemy. So there’s a narrative of victory. Turks do not have this narrative of victimization. With other Turk, there is a new state emerging and Turks can be proud of what they have achieved but the diaspora or Armenia itself, they don’t have this point of references that they can refer to as victory. So Turkey, in my opinion, should be a little bit more pragmatic and understand that we’re dealing with a small state that is much more traumatized than we are after all. Yes, we lost an empire but we have established a very strong state. Turkey is the most successful case in the Islamic world, the most democratic, the most secular, the most developed, so we should be more self-confident. That’s why I say Armenia compromised and Turkey did not.