“Justice Begins with Recognition” — An Interview with Professor Tessa Hofmann

Prof. Tessa Hofmann is a renowned social scientist, publicist, and human rights activist. Her research focuses on Armenian studies, addressing the Armenian Genocide, and the prevention of genocides. She has authored numerous scholarly publications on these topics and is actively engaged in advocating for the recognition of historical crimes and the protection of endangered communities.

"The recognition of genocide is more than symbolic politics. It is the restoration of the right to life," says Prof. Tessa Hofmann in an interview with Sirarpi Movsisyan, Head of the Consular Office of the Honorary Consulate of the Republic of Armenia.

What originally inspired you to focus your academic research on Armenian studies and genocide prevention? How has your perspective changed over the years through your work in this field?

In 1973, the Volkshochschule Berlin-Wilmersdorf asked me to give a series of lectures on "multinational Soviet literature". On ten evenings I presented the "literary regions" of the USSR; one evening was devoted to Soviet-Armenian literature, especially Hrant Matevosyan. Two young Armenians sat in the front row of the audience, one of whom came up to me afterwards, gave me a volume of poems by Hovhannes Tumanyan ('The Monastery of the Dove') and remarked that it was not enough to know Armenian literature only through Russian translations. Gerayer Koutcharian was then a lecturer in Old and New Armenian at the Free University of Berlin and invited me to learn Armenian there. Which I did. In my study of Armenian literature and history, I quickly discovered that there was an unclosed, open wound that remained exposed due to the Republic of Turkey's refusal to acknowledge historical facts.

This wound was the Ottoman genocide of Christians before, during and after World War I. In the course of my academic, journalistic and human rights research, I soon discovered that the Armenians were the best-known victims of this crime, but they were not the only ones. In total, some three million Christians of Ottoman and Persian nationality perished. Genocide is based on the denial of the victims' right to life. But as long as the crime as such is denied or played down, the denial remains. Recognition of genocide is more than symbolic politics. It is the restoration of the right to life.

Currently, I am interested in the long-term effects of genocide and experiences of violence, or intergenerational trauma. I am particularly interested in the testimonies of people in and from Turkey who are of Armenian descent (through at least one grandparent), but who do not dare to publicly acknowledge their heritage for fear of further discrimination at work, in society, during military service, etc., or who have fled into foreign or hybrid identities, often into the Alevi one. I am also concerned with the psychological consequences of repeated experiences of genocide.

In your opinion, what are the most pressing challenges facing Armenian communities today, particularly in light of recent developments in Nagorno-Karabakh? How can the international community respond effectively to these challenges?

The international community was well informed about the violations of international law against the de facto Republic of Artsakh - the nine-month starvation blockade, the military attack and the 2023 expulsion - but remained inactive. Foreign media repeatedly claimed, like a mantra, that Nagorno-Karabakh legally belonged to Azerbaijan under international law, which is actually disputed by international legal experts themselves.

Armenians have thus twice experienced international inaction in the face of genocidal crimes against Armenians: during the First World War and more recently during the blockade of the Lachin Corridor. There has certainly been no lack of warnings and decisions by international courts, but neither the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court nor the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have the executive powers to enforce their decisions. Economic sanctions against Azerbaijan, such as those imposed on Russia and Iran, have never been considered.

Enforcing the rights of the displaced people of Nagorno-Karabakh - the right to a homeland or to return under conditions of security guarantees and self-determination, compensation for their abandoned or destroyed property - requires diplomatic efforts by both the Republic of Armenia and the elected representatives of the former Republic of Artsakh. Unfortunately, we are currently witnessing the opposite, including the Armenian government's consideration of withdrawing its complaints against Azerbaijan at the ECHR. This would mean that the Armenian government would once again comply with Azerbaijan's demands without receiving anything in return.

There is also a lack of public support from Yerevan, at least publicly, for the former leaders of the Republic of Artsakh who are currently imprisoned and on trial in Baku. The Armenian head of government's negative public statements about Artsakh's patron and former minister of state, Ruben Vardanyan, do not help either.

How can international support, including sanctions, be generated when even the Armenian government lacks such support?

Your research and advocacy have often highlighted aspects of cultural genocide, such as the destruction of Armenian cultural sites. Could you elaborate on some of the most significant cases you have documented and their significance for Armenian identity?

Unfortunately, contrary to what Raphael Lemkin, the principal author of the UN Genocide Convention, had hoped for, the deliberate destruction or neglect of tangible cultural heritage was not included in the UN Genocide Convention. Since 1954, however, a number of international conventions have been established to protect cultural heritage:

The 1954 Hague Convention aims to protect cultural property during armed conflict. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan are signatories and have also ratified the relevant Protocol on Occupied Territories and the Second Protocol on the Strengthened Protection of Cultural Property, which prohibits "any alteration or change in the use of cultural property intended to conceal or destroy cultural, historical or scientific knowledge".

The UNESCO Convention of 16 November 1972 protects the world's cultural and natural heritage.

In addition, UNESCO has issued several supplementary recommendations, such as the 1956 Recommendation on International Principles for Archaeological Excavations, the 1968 Recommendation on the Preservation of Cultural Property Endangered by Public or Private Works, and the 1976 Recommendation on the Protection and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are also parties to the European Cultural Convention, the revised European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1994). On 21 June 2000, the Council of Europe adopted its Conclusions on the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Conflicts and Crises. However, we are once again faced with the challenge of effectively enforcing decisions and conventions when a state is determined to destroy the cultural heritage of an exterminated and/or displaced group.

The clearest example of the link between cultural destruction and historical narratives is provided by Azerbaijan in the region of Nakhichevan, which until 1920 had a relatively large Armenian population of around 40 per cent. Between 1997 and March 2006, a total of 28,000 Armenian architectural monuments in Nakhichevan - including 89 medieval churches, 5,840 khachkars (cross stones) and 22,000 ancient tombstones - were destroyed by the Azerbaijani army using bulldozers. The worst affected site was the 1,500-year-old historic Armenian cemetery of Jugha, which now serves as a military training ground for the Azerbaijani army.

In the former Armenian trading town of Agulis (now Aylis), an Armenian cathedral was replaced by a mosque in 2014. However, Muslim worshippers reportedly do not use the mosque, believing that God does not accept prayers from buildings erected in place of non-Muslim places of worship.

A negative role in the near-total destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in Nakhichevan may have been played by the fact that Mehriban Aliyeva, the wife of the Azerbaijani president, was appointed a UNESCO 'Goodwill Ambassador' in 2004. She continued to hold this title after the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, despite repeatedly advocating a military 'solution' to the conflict. The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom called for her immediate dismissal in an open letter on 29 December 2025. Aliyeva was also UNESCO's special ambassador for musical and vocal traditions.

There are fears that following the expulsion of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh - referred to as 'occupiers' in Azerbaijani political rhetoric - Azerbaijan may now proceed in this historically Armenian region as it did in Nakhichevan, with the aim of erasing all material evidence of the former existence and cultural activities of the displaced Armenians. However, the technical means of monitoring and documenting the destruction of cultural heritage - such as satellite imagery - are better today than they were two decades ago.

For Armenians, what is happening in Karabakh today is intolerable. It is also a deliberate humiliation through the desecration of places of worship and cemeteries, which are not only destroyed but deliberately defaced. The sight of Armenian skulls hanging from the exhaust pipes of Azerbaijani military vehicles, filmed by laughing soldiers and triumphantly displayed on social media, is consistent with this intention.

How do you assess the role of diaspora organisations and scholars in raising awareness about the Armenian Genocide and current human rights issues in Armenia and Artsakh?

Diaspora organisations and scholars have a crucial role to play in disseminating information and advocating for the demands derived from it - both in addressing past crimes and in preventing their recurrence. However, despite various attempts to establish such bodies in the past, there is still no international or transnational organisation (NGO) that can represent all diaspora Armenians and obtain consultative status at the UN, similar to the World Jewish Congress, the Palestinian National Council, the World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) or the International Roma Union.

Given your expertise in the field of memory culture: How do you see the role of the German-Armenian community in shaping the memory of the genocide in Germany? How does their contribution to public remembrance differ from that of Armenians in other parts of Europe?

The Armenian "community" in Germany is relatively small and very diverse in terms of its background - originating from Turkey, Iran, Armenia or the post-Soviet space. Unlike other migrant communities, such as people of Turkish descent, Armenians are hardly represented or visible in mainstream German society and its institutions, including trade unions, political parties and other interest groups. This is particularly different from the Armenian community in France, which has a long historical connection with Armenians dating back to the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. Today, France is home to the largest Armenian community in Europe, numbering some 600,000 people, while the estimated number of Armenians in Germany is around a tenth of that.  

In 1999, the Central Council of Armenians in Germany asked me to initiate efforts to have the Armenian Genocide recognised and condemned by the German Bundestag. It took another 17 years before German lawmakers passed a second resolution recognising the "deportations and massacres" of 1915 and 1916 as genocide under the UN Convention. Several non-Armenian organisations contributed to this effort, including groups of Turkish descent and individual Turks such as the late Ali Ertem and Doğan Akhanlı, as well as Bundestag member Cem Özdemir. Turkish-Kurdish activists also played a role. Germany is home to the largest diaspora community of Turkish origin in the world.  

Equally important is the support from associations and organizations of communities of the Christian co-victims: Greeks of Asia Minor origin, especially Pontic Greeks, as well as Arameans/Assyrians/Chaldeans.

From this ecumenical movement emerged the only joint memorial to date, erected in Berlin-Charlottenburg by the Support Association for an Ecumenical Memorial to the Victims of Genocide in the Ottoman Empire (FÖGG), with the support of the Berlin State Office for the Protection of Monuments.

The guiding principle of this approach is: "Solidarity of victims instead of rivalry."

The interview was conducted by Sirarpi Movsisyan.