Anyone who wants to close the debate on what happened to Armenians in 1915 should start by describing the events as genocide. They are, of course, free to speak as they wish. But if Turks are expected to be part of this debate, then a more constructive approach is needed. This requires avoiding language that closes the debate when in fact a lively discussion has already been going on.
Last week, for instance, a group of intellectuals issued a statement commemorating the “great catastrophe” that was inflicted upon the Armenians of Turkey in 1915. The same group had signed, two years ago, a petition apologizing for what happened to Armenians in 1915. On Saturday, hundreds of people in İstanbul remembered the massacres of Armenians, saying, “This is our pain, too.”
For the last couple of years, a debate has been opened in Turkey. Conferences have been held, public gatherings have been organized and articles and commentaries have been published discussing different aspects of the Armenian massacre. Even the Turkish prime minister declared last May that “through fascistic approaches, we forced many to leave this country,” and he asked, “Did we do any good?”
As Turkey proceeds along the path of democratization, it has become common to debate Turkey’s past, including the Armenian question. An authoritarian regime with a monopoly on the interpretation of history and with its control of civil society does not allow free research and free debate. The past is presented in a way to legitimize the position of the established regime. This is fortunately changing. The democratization of Turkish politics and the liberation and diversification of civil society is allowing the emergence of plural ideas on the past including the Armenian massacre.
This process will certainly continue. But the critical point is that if debating 1915 is reduced to naming the events genocide, it may block the whole process. Such a strategy provokes Turkish nationalism, preventing the Turkish masses from being attentive to the thesis that contravenes the dominant view in the country. Thus to unlock the hearts and minds of the Turks at large necessitates abandoning the attitude of categorical accusation against the Turks over the 1915 events.
Of course, the belief of Armenians should be respected, but they should also understand that the genocide claims make the reconciliation efforts between the Turks and Armenians almost impossible to attain. We can get out of the imprisonment of the past atrocities, not by labeling but disclosing it. Calling it genocide is the shortest way to close the debate. I think both societies should learn more about the time when disasters hit both the Armenians in Anatolia and the Turks in Anatolia and the Balkans. Thus the first thing to do is to let the sides share their stories without a language of accusation, to create empathy, understanding. This is possible.
As the time of nation-states is passing, it is a pity for the Turks and Armenians that we are still locked into the animosities created a century ago to create nation-states. If we want reconciliation and dialogue among those who survived 1915, the Turks and Armenians, the way forward is to go beyond the “genocide” quarrel.
In this, the approach of American President Obama is rather constructive: call the events of 1915 a “great catastrophe” (meds yeghern), but also “salute the Turks who saved Armenians in 1915” and encourage the process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia.
If the matter for Armenians is not to take revenge for 1915, it is time to work together toward learning, sharing and reconciling past agonies without categorical accusations of genocide. But if what they are interested in is taking revenge, then, I am sorry to say that they will never be able to enjoy this.
26 April 2010, Monday
Last week, for instance, a group of intellectuals issued a statement commemorating the “great catastrophe” that was inflicted upon the Armenians of Turkey in 1915. The same group had signed, two years ago, a petition apologizing for what happened to Armenians in 1915. On Saturday, hundreds of people in İstanbul remembered the massacres of Armenians, saying, “This is our pain, too.”
For the last couple of years, a debate has been opened in Turkey. Conferences have been held, public gatherings have been organized and articles and commentaries have been published discussing different aspects of the Armenian massacre. Even the Turkish prime minister declared last May that “through fascistic approaches, we forced many to leave this country,” and he asked, “Did we do any good?”
As Turkey proceeds along the path of democratization, it has become common to debate Turkey’s past, including the Armenian question. An authoritarian regime with a monopoly on the interpretation of history and with its control of civil society does not allow free research and free debate. The past is presented in a way to legitimize the position of the established regime. This is fortunately changing. The democratization of Turkish politics and the liberation and diversification of civil society is allowing the emergence of plural ideas on the past including the Armenian massacre.
This process will certainly continue. But the critical point is that if debating 1915 is reduced to naming the events genocide, it may block the whole process. Such a strategy provokes Turkish nationalism, preventing the Turkish masses from being attentive to the thesis that contravenes the dominant view in the country. Thus to unlock the hearts and minds of the Turks at large necessitates abandoning the attitude of categorical accusation against the Turks over the 1915 events.
Of course, the belief of Armenians should be respected, but they should also understand that the genocide claims make the reconciliation efforts between the Turks and Armenians almost impossible to attain. We can get out of the imprisonment of the past atrocities, not by labeling but disclosing it. Calling it genocide is the shortest way to close the debate. I think both societies should learn more about the time when disasters hit both the Armenians in Anatolia and the Turks in Anatolia and the Balkans. Thus the first thing to do is to let the sides share their stories without a language of accusation, to create empathy, understanding. This is possible.
As the time of nation-states is passing, it is a pity for the Turks and Armenians that we are still locked into the animosities created a century ago to create nation-states. If we want reconciliation and dialogue among those who survived 1915, the Turks and Armenians, the way forward is to go beyond the “genocide” quarrel.
In this, the approach of American President Obama is rather constructive: call the events of 1915 a “great catastrophe” (meds yeghern), but also “salute the Turks who saved Armenians in 1915” and encourage the process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia.
If the matter for Armenians is not to take revenge for 1915, it is time to work together toward learning, sharing and reconciling past agonies without categorical accusations of genocide. But if what they are interested in is taking revenge, then, I am sorry to say that they will never be able to enjoy this.
26 April 2010, Monday
No comments:
Post a Comment