Nicolas Tavitian and Khatchik Der Ghougassian respond to Payaslian's article. Tavitian holds a master’s degree in public affairs and international relations from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. He is director of the European Union Contact and Information Office of the Forum of Armenian Associations of Europe.

Der Ghougassian holds a master’s degree in international relations from FLACSO (Facultad Latino Americana de Ciencias Sociales), Argentina.

In the first part of his article, Payaslian reviews the efforts of Armenian political organizations to have the United States recognize the Armenian Genocide. The U.S. government has justified its refusal to recognize the Genocide by invoking the strategic significance of Turkey. But, in fact, "considerations of domestic political economy have loomed large." Payaslian shows that pressure groups, ranging from defense contractors to educational institutions, have had a vested interest in keeping Turkey happy. "Refusal to recognize the Genocide serves as a confidence-building mechanism to demonstrate their . . . loyalty and support," Payaslian writes.

Payaslian tracks changes in the focus of Armenian political activism. He recalls that sovereignty over historic Armenian lands was "one of the most essential components" of the Armenian Question after World War I. It "has been redefined as, or totally replaced by, recognition of the Genocide. There has been little debate on the implications of this shift in orientation from ‘Mer hoghere’ [our lands] to mere recognition of the Genocide. This in turn raises another fundamental question: What do Armenian communities hope to accomplish through recognition?"

In the second part of his article, Payaslian identifies four principal purposes of recognition: "(1) recognition as a vehicle for the return of historic Armenian lands to their rightful owners; (2) recognition to heal the individual and collective emotional wounds of the survivors and the nation as a whole; (3) recognition for pecuniary compensation; and (4) recognition to secure official legitimacy for purposes of public policy regarding the subject of the Armenian Genocide."

Payaslian contends that recognition of the Genocide cannot achieve all four objectives equally effectively. He considers each in turn.

Tavitian’s article is titled, "The Fifth Purpose of Genocide Recognition: A Response to Simon Payaslian." For Tavitian, working toward recognition of the Genocide is a way of protecting Armenia from Turkey, which continues to be a hostile neighbor.

According to Tavitian, Payaslian is right to look at power and economics in a realistic way. It would be wrong, however, to disregard "the considerable impact of ideas and knowledge on policy."

Tavitian writes: "Though morality plays a negligible part in foreign policy, international rules of behavior do exist." He notes that "European institutions are in the process of building up a body of regional international law that is becoming ever more constraining on individual member states. This normative order covers inter alia regional security, democracy, and human rights."

Continuing, Tavitian argues: "In December 1999 the European Union took the decision to open negotiations to prepare Turkey’s accession to the European Union. These negotiations, which will take many years, will place tremendous pressure on Turkey to change its ways--to become a normal, Western-style democracy and to resolve its most serious security problems." The case must be made that "Turkey’s hostility to Armenians and the Genocide taboo are obstacles on the road to democratic progress and regional security." Then, the European Union could adopt "much of the Armenian analysis of regional relations, and press upon Turkey to improve its relations with its tiny northern neighbor."

Der Ghougassian, like Tavitian, argues that "pursuing the recognition of the Armenian Genocide as a foreign policy issue is a way of maintaining vigilance against the Turkish threat."

The issue, according to Der Ghougassian’s article, is "the definition of an Armenian foreign policy doctrine and the role that Armenia could--and should--assume in the construction of a post–Cold War world order; more specifically the creation of transnational institutions with the aim of consolidating international law. To make this point is not to ignore the harsh reality of machtpolitik, but to propose a path that many states, like Mexico and Canada, have undertaken to protect their national security from potential threats from powerful neighbors. Neither one of the two countries ignores the necessity of national defense, just as Armenia might never be able to give up the idea of having a well-armed and well-trained military. But they are conscious that they could possibly never compete with other powerful nations. Strengthening international guarantees that diminish the imminence of brute force is a way for states to compensate for their relative weakness."

Der Ghougassian’s article is titled, "The Genocide on Armenia’s Foreign Policy Agenda: A Response to Simon Payaslian."

In the end, Payaslian replies to Tavitian and Der Ghougassian, and sets the stage for the debate to continue.

Armenian Forum editor Vincent Lima noted that this debate is sorely needed in Armenian communities. "So much effort goes into passing resolutions recognizing the Genocide, people forget to ask just what it is they are ultimately trying to accomplish. President Kocharian’s recent statements on the matter have served as a reminder of the need to think about these matters and discuss them. These articles in Armenian Forum provide the kind of information and analysis needed for the debate to remain grounded and focused."