"Europe and the Mets Yeghern"

The article "Europe and Mets Yeghern" is devoted to analyzing how European public consciousness perceives the Armenian Genocide and to the question of whether this tragedy is perceived as a pan-European humanitarian catastrophe. The material continues the theme raised in ANIV No. 3 (12) 2007, and presents a selection of responses from prominent European intellectuals — Aldo Ferrari (Italy), Laurent Leylekian (France), Claude-Armand Moutafian (France) — with editorial commentary.

Introduction and methodology
The material is based on a single question addressed to the experts: does Europe consider the Armenian Genocide a pan-European catastrophe, and how do the prospects of Hai Dat and the real weight of parliamentary resolutions recognizing Mets Yeghern depend on the answer?

Aldo Ferrari's position
The historian points out that contemporary Europe has lost its religious center of identity, shifting it into the sphere of culture and civilization. Hence:
• the Christian affiliation of the genocide's victims is not perceived as grounds for the "Europeanness" of the tragedy;
• the Armenian Genocide is viewed primarily in a political context — as a tool in the debate over Turkey's accession to the EU.

Laurent Leylekian's position
The publicist identifies an asymmetry in the perception of Western and Eastern catastrophes, drawing a parallel with the Holocaust. His key thesis: recognition of the Armenian Genocide is equivalent to recognizing Armenians and Turks as "civilized nations" in the sense of international law that took shape in the colonial era. Refusal to recognize it perpetuates a hidden racial inequality.

The editorial commentary on Leylekian's text develops the theme of the European orientation of Armenian self-consciousness:
• the striving for European recognition is interpreted as an irrational, psychologically driven need for confirmation of "kinship";
• the selectivity of Armenian interest in genocide recognition is noted — priority is given to the Western powers rather than to China, India, or the Arab world;
• parliamentary resolutions on the Genocide are interpreted not as a growing interest in Armenia, but as a tool for restraining Turkish integration into the EU.

Claude Moutafian's position
The historian compares the cases of the Armenian and Jewish genocides, highlighting two fundamental differences:
• political continuity — the Kemalists, unlike postwar German authorities, ended up among the victors and were able to distance themselves from the Young Turk legacy;
• the degree of Western involvement — European institutions' complicity in the Holocaust produced a lasting sense of guilt that is absent in relation to the Armenian tragedy.

Conclusion
Taken together, the positions presented demonstrate that contemporary Europe perceives the Armenian Genocide primarily as a humanitarian, but not properly a European, catastrophe. Recognition of Mets Yeghern turns out to be embedded in current political circumstances, above all connected with the question of Turkey's European integration, rather than in a stable ethical or civilizational identification with the fate of the Armenian people. The authors agree that this state of affairs reflects the broader problem of the selectivity of European memory and the hierarchy of "our own" and "other" catastrophes.