TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI
Yusuf KANLI
A few years ago it was difficult to discuss, even in private, what happened in Turkey during and immediately after World War I to the Armenian population of this country. There was prejudice and an official dogma of history that no one dared challenge. There was a veil of silence, as if there was something that this country and this nation were trying to hide.
Armenian terrorists were virtually and mercilessly hunting Turkish diplomats abroad, and the Western allies of the country were giving covert and open support to Armenian claims of genocide and demanding that Ankara “face its history.” Some of Turkey’s allies were even erecting monuments in remembrance of the victims of the so-called genocide and choosing places of symbolic importance — like the square in front of the building where the Sevres document, carving out ethnic states from the Ottoman Empire and leaving Ankara and the environs for the Turks, was produced — for such hostile actions.
Under such conditions, naturally, in full conformity with the “There is a reaction to every action” rule of physics, as opposed to the rise of Armenian nationalism based on distorted historical hearsay (since there was no concrete evidence to support the claims), there was a rise in Turkish nationalism. Again, as a natural consequence of efforts to create “nationalist history” on both sides, all the avenues of settling what ought to be a purely historical issue have become an intractable political problem.
In the meantime, there was no Armenian state that Turkey could accept as a negotiating partner, and the genocide issue had become a gigantic industry in the hands of the Armenian diaspora. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and after Armenia, together with other new republics, became an independent state, the nationalist sentiments prevailing in Yerevan at the time prevented again a possible rapprochement as the declaration of independence of the Armenian republic included expansionist designs on Turkish territory.
Changing international conjecture, Turkey’s European Union bid as well as the general improved atmosphere in Turkey regarding freedom of speech and thought is now once again pushing the Armenian issue into the forefront of issues on Turkey’s agenda. Though some provocative statements are temporarily spoiling the atmosphere as well as the new rise in nationalism causing some concern, it can easily be said that there is more freedom of speech on this issue in Turkey than in many other European countries — where saying that there was no Armenian genocide is prohibited by law.
The issue being discussed now is not what happened during those years. No one is yet focusing or trying to understand the immense suffering of the entire population, especially around the eastern border regions. Armenia and the Armenian diaspora maintain that the genocide was a fact, while Turkey and its official historians maintain that there was no genocide but rather that many people, including Turks, Armenians and others, lost their lives due to war conditions, illnesses and such.
Both sides to this problem must concede the fact that immense human suffering was experienced during those years and that whatever might have been the size of it at that time, during the foundation of the Turkish Republic there were around 300,000 Armenians living in these lands — a figure that has unfortunately dwindled to as low as 30,000 in the present day.
The Russians, the British or the French might have exploited the nationalist sentiments of the Armenians; they might have collaborated with the enemy, Russia. But whatever the explanation might be, they were subjected to forced exile and uprooted from their ancestral lands.
(II)
Without exaggeration and in order to avoid becoming a victim of nationalist sentiments, Turks must come to realize that in one way or another the Armenian population of this land was uprooted from its ancestral domain and as a result a whole culture vanished from our country. Are we Turks solely responsible for this? Most definitely not! As much as the Turks, the Armenian hordes, together with the Western powers, as well as Russia, that incited the Armenian nationalist uprising should all be blamed equally, not only for the Armenian suffering, but for the suffering of the entire population of that region during those years.
Of course, the explanation of my dear friend Hrant Dink — editor of the Armenian Agos weekly — that irrespective of whether they were killed, exiled or whatever, the fact that the Armenian population of the country was uprooted from its fatherland and a culture of over 4,000 years was annihilated on Turkish territory is what Armenians refer to as genocide, which is a good explanation but leads us nowhere.
With such a mentality, one has to ask Dink if he considers the occupation and ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh and its environs of its 1.5 million or so Azerbaijani population an act of genocide as well? Besides, what happened during and immediately after World War I in eastern Anatolia took place long before the international community adopted the genocide description, but the Armenian occupation of Karabakh and displaced Azerbaijani victims, too, and their suffering and attendant problems continue.
Of course, no one should try to belittle or attempt to ignore the massive suffering of the peoples of Anatolia, irrespective of their religion and/or ethnic background. But at the same time, efforts to identify the real historic background that prompt these claims and counterclaims should not be spared.
Naturally, this matter has to be explored and debated by historians, but those very same historians undertaking such a daunting task should not themselves be the victims of nationalist prejudice. Whatever the historic reality, they must be able to unearth the true facts of what happened without having ulterior motives as well as being devoid of concern of what could happen to them once their work is complete. Historians who are academically, morally and/or ethically questioned by either side must not be involved in this process in any way.
And, of course, Turkey and Armenia must firstly have the political will to have a dialogue primarily between themselves on the political dimensions of the problem, and, secondly, to declare a readiness to accept whatever the outcome the work of a joint committee of historians may produce.
To facilitate this process of reconciliation and re-discovery of the historical truth behind our common suffering some sort of a “propaganda moratorium” ought to be declared by Turkey and Armenia, while in order to facilitate human contact — which would help the two peoples better understand each other better — Turkey must open its border with Armenia.
Armenia has declared on many occasions that it has no territorial designs on Turkish territory. Yet any move by Armenia to erase references in its declaration of independence that imply any territorial designs on Turkish territory will be a step that would help the consolidation of confidence between the two countries. The approach of the current Turkish government to the Armenian issue must be reciprocated by Yerevan. The two nations must be able to say “that’s enough” to the past that continues to haunt their common future. This antagonism cannot be allowed to continue forever at the expense of both the two peoples.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.