ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807 Fax: 416-512-1736 E-mail: zoryan@idirect.ca
www.zoryaninstitute.org
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: George Shirinian
DATE: September 15, 2003 Tel: 416-250-9807
FUTURE OF TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS DISCUSSED AT ZORYAN INSTITUTE PANEL
The Zoryan Institute, with the participation of the Armenian General
Benevolent Union of Toronto, organized a panel discussion on the
subject of “The Future of Turkish-Armenian Relations” on August 10,
2003. The panel consisted of Dr. Rouben Adalian, Director of the
Armenian National Institute in Washington, DC, Dr. Taner Akçam,
Visiting Assistant Professor of History at the University of
Minnesota-Twin Cities, and Dr. Roger Smith, Professor Emeritus of
Government at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Welcoming
remarks were given in Armenian, English and Turkish by Mr. Hagop Tozak,
a member of the AGBU Toronto Executive. The speakers were introduced
by Dr. Razmik Panossian, Dept. of Political Science, London School
of Economics, who also moderated the panel and question and answer
session. Dr. Panossian has a new book on Armenian nationalism in press.
Rouben Adalian opened with an exploration of the theme of the
importance of Armenian history. He explained how there has been a
stagnant view of Armenian history, with the devastation caused by
the Genocide, and with the Soviet period somehow seeming to lack
legitimacy and never being regarded as a particularly interesting
object to study. “And yet, the independence of Armenia should make
us think very, very hard about that,” he cautioned.
He explained, “What is lost when people become trapped in this kind
of self-image is that they tend to feel they are no longer actors
in their own history. With that you have the ascending spiral of a
people who are entirely captured and overwhelmed by its own sense of
victimhood. Neither the Genocide, nor its aftermath, nor the Diaspora
have been particularly encouraging frameworks in which a people could
rethink, re-examine, and reconstitute itself, and out of that derive a
consciousness and an awareness. All of this is particularly critical in
the modern age, when there is constant reference to the globalization
process. What is really meant is the increased international contact
among peoples and the necessity of having the confidence and capacity
to engage in reasonable communication. And that is something that
got left out of the Armenian reality.”
Adalian continued that the re-emergence of independent statehood
should have allowed Armenians to re-evaluate their status, but the
problems of the earthquake, the Karabagh conflict, and the ensuing
humanitarian crisis prevented that. Even the date of independence,
September 21, which should be a unifying issue, is rivaled by the
celebration of other dates, such as April 24 and May 28.
He asserted that Armenians’ view of themselves has affected their
perception of Turkey. At the same time, Turkey also had a static
view of Armenia, and has never figured out how to cope with a country
full of Armenians on its doorstep. Knee-jerk reactions, such as the
blockade of Armenia as a response to the Karabagh conflict, show
Turkey’s inability to rationalize the Armenians.
Even though there is an economic blockade and the Turkish-Armenian
border is closed, he reminded, there is still $40 to $60 million
dollars in trade going on annually, and it has reached as high as
$100 million. Georgia and Iran have become conduits for this trade,
even if the diplomats don’t know what to do.
However, the situation is changing, Adalian concluded. Ten years
ago the Turkish media completely avoided reference to the Armenian
Genocide. Now, there are headlines in the press, in which the term
“genocide” is even used. We must realize that Turkey is not a
monolithic society, and that the state’s position on the Armenian
Genocide does not represent all of the Turkish people.
The next speaker was Taner Akçam, who described the challenges to
reconciliation between the Armenian and Turkish peoples. “The basic
question,” he began, “is how the Armenian Genocide can be acknowledged
by the Turkish State.” One argument is that this can be achieved
only by other governments putting pressure on Turkey. However,
there is also a neglected strategy of bringing Turkish society into
the debate. There is a contradiction between the Turkish state and
society that is not well recognized outside of Turkey. This strategy
can be complementary to the other.
He explained that the Turkish state policy of denial is inflexible
and not likely to change soon. It determines how both Turks and
Armenians approach the issue. It prevents debate between the two
communities. Neither group is able to look at itself critically. The
denial policy is the beginning and the end of every explanation of the
problems between Turks and Armenians. The question becomes, therefore,
how to break free from the influence of this denial policy and how to
approach the issue of the Genocide from a different perspective. Is
there any possibility of interacting with each other, in spite of
this policy of denial?
“It is a general rule that a conflict can only be resolved through
direct interaction between the communities that have a problem with
each other,” Akçam asserted. They must reconceptualize the problem
and put both societies at the center of the analysis. The opportunity
has to be created in which both groups can learn about each other.
He described the four basic elements for reconciliation, truth, mercy,
justice and peace, and then went on to talk about the importance of
language. “We must recognize that the language we use to discuss an
issue is the result of a certain power relation. There is no objective
terminology, as it reflects certain mindsets,” he stated. “The existing
discourse between the two communities is determined mostly by the
Turkish state policy of denial. Therefore, if we want to create a new
approach to Armenian-Turkish relations, we have to acknowledge that we
should start by creating our own language, our own terms, that are the
product of this new mindset, of being willing to reach reconciliation.”
Akçam described the two major obstacles to reconciliation. The first
is that both parties see Turks and Armenians not as individuals but as
negative stereotypes. The second is that each party equates both the
individuals and the collectives of today with those of the past. He
concluded that the problem is not primarily disagreement over an
historical event, but rather how the two communities perceive each
other today.
Roger Smith addressed three large issues: the costs of denial, the role
of truth and reconciliation commissions, and the idea of forgiveness,
especially after acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
“Of course there have been great costs to the Armenians,” he began,
“but there have also been costs to Turkey.” He described how Turkey
spends millions of dollars on denial, on public relations firms, and
on lobbyists. There have also been costs to third parties, such as
the contracts to sell military equipment to Turkey that France lost
due to its official recognition of the Genocide. And finally, there
have been costs to scholarship, as the Turkish policy of denial has
produced bad scholarship.
Smith noted that there have been some thirty truth commissions, but
not all aimed at reconciliation. Without justice, perhaps in the form
of reparations, there can be no reconciliation. “A precondition for
reconciliation is a shared, accepted historical account,” he asserted,
“which is lacking between Armenians and Turks.” In discussing the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), he noted that the
term “truth” was absent from the name. He described the importance
of the legitimacy of such commissions, which is derived from who
initiates them and who the members are. He noted that there were
notorious deniers among the Turkish members of TARC.
In asking the question, “Is partial reconciliation possible without
an admission of guilt,” Smith gave as an analogy America’s dropping of
the atomic bomb on Japan, a war crime. The US has never apologized for
that, and Japan, on its side, committed many atrocities during WWII,
but the two countries and peoples get along very well today. Turkey
and Armenia could recognize each other; Turkey could open the border
between them and lift the embargo; it could allow for the development
of Armenian culture in Turkey, allow Ani to be Armenian, let churches
exist, permit education in the Armenian language, and allow open
discussion of the Genocide in Turkey. It could rescind the recent
educational policy of teaching that there was no Armenian Genocide. It
should allow for the notion of Turkey as a pluralistic society.
On the subject of forgiveness, Smith asked, “Who can forgive Turkey?”
Descendents might forgive the denial, but only survivors could
forgive the Genocide. However, for this to happen, there has to be
acknowledgement and repentance and the making of amends. On the other
hand, while it may not be the place of Armenians today to forgive the
Genocide, they could try to put aside their ill feelings. Recently,
the Prime Minister of Turkey said in Kars that if the Armenians would
stop their efforts at getting foreign governments to recognize the
Genocide, then Turkey might be able to open a dialogue with them.
A lengthy and lively discussion between the panelists and the
audience followed. One of the most interesting questions raised was
how it could be possible to bring the Armenian and Turkish communities
together. Greg Sarkissian, President of Zoryan, answered by describing
a long-term project the Institute is involved in, called “Building a
Common Body of Knowledge.” The objective of this project is to make
available authoritative documents and publications about the Armenian
Genocide, in both English and Turkish, so that both communities could
have the same basic, agreed upon facts as a starting point for their
discussions.
“We are very fortunate to have so many renowned experts in
Toronto right now, participating in the Genocide and Human Rights
University Program,” said George Shirinian, Director of the Zoryan
Institute. “With all of these specialists gathered in one place,
it provides us with the opportunity to present some of the latest
thinking on a subject of vital interest to the Armenian community,
as well as the Turkish community. We at Zoryan hope that through such
forums as this panel discussion, we can help create an understanding
between the two communities that can eventually help in the process
of establishing a dialogue between them.”
The Zoryan Institute is a non-profit, international center devoted
to the research and documentation of contemporary issues related to
the history, politics, society, and culture of Armenia and Armenians
around the world.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.