Saturday, December 24, 2005
Gündüz Aktan
A summary of a speech delivered by Fatma M. Gocek at a conference held at the Zoryan Institute on Dec. 2 has appeared on the Internet site HYE-TERT. Let us take a look at the main elements of her presentation:
First, she says she would not use the word genocide though �it certainly is so by the definition accepted by the United Nations.� Then she proceeds to use that word many times, stressing that Turkey is definitely going to have to recognize the �genocide.�
She limits to the state the official thesis that rejects the genocide allegation, insinuating that this is not a thesis embraced by the rest of society.
She says that, as long as the anti-democratic, repressive and negating Turkish state does not recognize the genocide, Turkey will not become fully democratic and join the European Union. Thus, she portrays recognition of genocide as the sign that means Turkey is a democracy.
She maintains that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power �in spite of strong nationalist opposition within the state military and bureaucracy� and that it has joined forces with the �educated liberal segment that challenges the status quo.� She says that in order to be able to survive in Turkey, this religion-based party wants Turkey to join the EU and that, unless the �nationalist forces� are diminished, Turkey will not be able to develop its democracy, join the EU and confront its past.
She advocates that, in this process, one should oppose the court case in Massachusetts and oppose the legal pressure put on Orhan Pamuk, Hrant Dink and Ragip Zarakolu.
She says that many of the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide later joined Mustafa Kemal and took part in the Turkish War of Liberation. She claims that, initially, 25-30 percent of the first Turkish Grand National Assembly consisted of such persons and that two of them, Ismet Inonu and Celal Bayar, later served as prime minister and president of the republic.
Then she gives the good news that the ultimate goal is to ensure the return of all Armenians driven out of Anatolia.
The Internet text also includes a caricature-like account of the brief intervention the counselor of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, Yonet Tezel, was permitted to make during the conference. On the other hand, Zoryan Institute head Greg Sarkissian makes reference to Pamuk’s words about breaking a taboo and about the scholarly criticism voiced by Halil Berktay, Murat Belge and Taner Akcam. He says there are those who oppose the �state-sanctioned views,� �openly decrying the state’s suppression of freedom of speech.�
In short, the summary boils down to the following: Everybody in Turkey recognizes the Armenian genocide with the exception of the anti-democratic, repressive Turkish state, which uses violence against its people backed by the nationalists that support the state. When the nationalists are weakened and the state becomes democratic, Turkey will recognize the genocide and the Armenians will return to Anatolia.
Yet, the Turkish state’s official thesis is merely that the Armenian events were a tragedy but not a genocide (naturally, those who oppose the official thesis indirectly accepting the genocide allegations). My proposal to have the issue solved via adjudication or arbitration has nothing to do with the official thesis.
The truth is that in Turkey no one recognizes the �genocide� except for a few �liberal intellectuals.� Thousands of academics, historians, social scientists, journalists, politicians and almost all of the public reject the genocide allegation. Nobody should entertain any illusion that there isn’t a very large and unshakeable consensus behind the official thesis.
It would be absurd to describe as �Turkish nationalists that lack a democratic mentality� the British government and many renowned figures such as author Guenter Levy, author Samuel Weems, Professor Justin McCarthy, Professor Bernard Lewis, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Dr. Stanford Shaw for not recognizing the �genocide.�
If the criterion for democracy is recognizing genocide, then why is it that Armenia continues to be a country that is far from being democratic, a country where the parliament speaker, the prime minister and a number of deputies have been massacred in parliament?
In the schools of 22 of the states in the United States, it is forbidden to teach children the views of those rejecting the genocide allegations, and all of the publishing companies exercise self-censure, refusing to publish any book upholding the counter-view. In some European countries there are laws that punish the _expression of the counter-view. Do these restrictions constitute freedom of _expression?
If the Armenians are so confident about their thesis, why do they oppose the Turkish prime minister’s proposal for creation of a joint scholarly commission and the court case in Massachusetts?
Why do those kind-hearted (!), well-educated (!), �liberal intellectuals� of ours who believe that genocide took place turn a deaf ear to proposals for letting judicial channels find a resolution to the problem?
On this issue a well-funded but primitive psychological operation is being carried out. And this operation itself is the most important piece of evidence attesting to the fact that the 1915 events were not genocide.
They will definitely be defeated.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.