Posted on 09/03/2007 5:25:17 PM PDT by SJackson
The Anti Defamation League’s recent decision to acknowledge that the Armenian “massacres” of 1915 were tantamount to “genocide” has created a political storm in Turkey. Seen from Washington, such Turkish resentment is counterproductive. It only confirms the fact that Turkey needs to come to terms with its own history. When you have prominent leaders of the Turkish Jewish community writing letters to the ADL reminding them that the Turkish Jewish community’s well-being is jeopardized, this does not exactly come across as a ringing endorsement of Turkey’s democratic maturity.
What the Turkish body politic and public opinion fail to understand is that the genocide issue is already a lost battle in the West. This battle is lost partly because of Turkey’s own behavior and stern, uncompromising image. The official Turkish narrative on the question of “genocide” displays all the symptoms of an authoritarian state that has created a taboo. The education system, nationalist press and bureaucratic reflex are all symptomatic of a totalitarian way of thinking where even a slight departure from the official line creates mayhem. How else can one explain efforts to undermine academic conferences on this issue, or the disgraceful treatment of Orhan Pamuk by most of the nationalist press after he was awarded the Nobel Prize?
The official rhetoric of the government is simplistic: Leave history to the historians. What is, then, the logic behind accusing historians discussing the issue in an academic conference as traitors ready to stab the nation in the back? Such conspiracy-prone approaches increasingly produce an anti-European, anti-American, anti-Kurd, anti-Armenian and anti-liberal nationalism. At the end of the day, Turkey is seen by the West as a country that is fighting its own religion, ethnicity and history. A normal country able to discuss its history freely would probably be less alarmed when others accuse it of having committed “genocide.”
The Turkish overreaction to the slightest criticism on this issue -- even when it comes from traditional friends -- reveals a disturbing sense of insecurity, bordering on guilt. But it is perhaps the lack of a commonsense strategy that is most disturbing. For years, Turks have refused to engage the world community. There was a clear reluctance to answer questions when Turkish embassies all over the world were asked to participate in panel discussions and respond to questions -- in short, to make their own case.
What is often overlooked by Ankara is the fact that the official rhetoric did not change the international perception of “genocide.” To the contrary, Turkey’s reluctance to engage left the field wide open for anti-Turkish propaganda. Then, about 20 years ago, Ankara finally decided to engage more seriously -- but strictly on historical and legal terms. What emerged was not a pretty scene. The Turkish view, in a nutshell, is that you have to put things in historical context. There was a war. Russians invaded and Armenians cooperated with the enemy in order to secure an independent homeland. Armenians, in other words, were not innocent civilians but nationalist rebels.
Fine. But this doesn’t change the fact that they were a minority and that the Ottoman state was in charge of their protection. The Ottoman state decided to deport them. What happened during the deportations? Hundreds of thousands were massacred. Wasn’t the government and military in charge of protecting the deported? How can you have hundreds of thousands of men, women, children massacred without a sustained campaign? The legalistic answer is that there was no “intent” to exterminate the Armenian race. OK, so what happened is not comparable to the Holocaust. But isn’t it still “genocide” when close to a million people are killed while the state is unable and unwilling to protect them?
Today what Turkey needs to do is to engage Armenia and start a reconciliation process. This is no longer a historical issue. It is a political and psychological predicament. Turkey should also issue an official apology, but also indicate that territorial or financial compensations are out of question. A monument that would commemorate the death of Armenians would go a long way in creating goodwill from the international community. But most importantly it would start a process of self-healing at home. Opening the border with Armenia would also secure the moral high ground as it did on the question of Cyprus three years ago.
Two years ago, when I visited Yerevan, former Armenian President Levon Ter Petrossian asked me if Prime Minister Erdoğan is politically strong enough to engage the Armenian question without succumbing to populist nationalism. I told him we will have to wait for better days. Now that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the elections in a landslide, it has an opening to do the right thing. Let’s hope it will…
What troubles me, is how we are supposed to know what actually took place 80 to 90 years ago. Turkey says one thing and the Armenians say another. Look at Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians make one claim and the Iraelis make another. It just wears you out trying to keep up.
I am reasonable sure that the Turks did some things that I wouldn’t approve of, but what am I supposed to do about it in 2007? It’s a region on the other side of the world. There seems to be conflicting renditions of what actually took place and what the actual causes were.
I address this purely from a US standpoint. What are we supposed to do? Which side do we take, which side do we insult. When I am reminded of this issue locally, I try to treat the subject with reverence and respect. Frankly, that isn’t what folks want. They want you to take sides.
I say this living in a town that now takes one day off each year to remember the Armenian Genocide. And with all due respect, I do NOT approve of us importing this issue into the fabric of our own nationhood. We should only commemorate or celebrate events that pertain to our own national identity.
If the Armenian regions of the world wish to commemorate these events, I respect their wish to do so.
Really?
Never underestimate the human mind to rationalize my good friend.
Well, if you are absolutely positive about every charge or counter charge raised in the region by the two sides, you’re a better person than I. When it comes to terrorism and most of the Palestinian charges, I think we’re on the same page, but some of the more obscure issues aren’t quite as cut and dried. Take care.
To the best of my knowledge the government of the Republic of Turkey does not deny that horrific things happened during those final days of the Ottoman Empire. But Ottoman government organized genocide? No.
Hundreds of thousands died, both Armenians and Turks. Armenians died of disease and from attacks in places like what is now northern Iraq.
Newspaper reports of the era described Armenian men being killed by Kurds and the girls and women being carried off. see here
You will find a series of newspaper articles of that era.
RE: "What are we supposed to do? Which side do we take, which side do we insult."
Armenia refuses to accept our Ambassador unless our Congress passes Resolution 160 (not sure about the number) which labels it genocide.
You make an excellent point about NOT importing this issue into the fabric of our own nationhood. Thank you.
Back to the post..
The legalistic answer is that there was no “intent” to exterminate the Armenian race. OK, so what happened is not comparable to the Holocaust. But isn’t it still “genocide” when close to a million people are killed while the state is unable and unwilling to protect them?
Why does it have to be labeled genocide? Does the word matter to the victims. They died horrible deaths.
Does it have to be genocide for a legal (forcing insurance companies to act, lawsuits, etc.) reasons?
Anybody? What gives with Armenia occupying portions of Azerbaijani territory and driving residents out, BTW. That's happening now.
I agree with your comments regarding this issue and I appreciate you providing a link and further information on the subject.
How time and numbers ostensibly seem to matter...Ahem.
Anyway, what you say to General Ratko Mladic my good friend?
I dunno but maybe he can explain something for me. There are horrific things happening today in that very region.
The questions are: 1) What's it about and 2) Why can't it be fixed?
To wit,
There are about one million refugees and it's happening now. Instead of arguing over a word for tragic events that happened almost one-hundred years ago how about first solving a horrific condition that exists now?
Many are refugees and IDPs from the conflicts in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Article title, Widespread discontent in Armenia after Elisabeth Jones' comments
Elisabeth Jones, US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs (at the time of the article, 2005) apparently upset Armenians when she made clear "Washington’s position on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has never changed. 'The policy of the United States on Nagorno Karabakh conflict has never changed. The United States will not recognize Nagorno Karabakh as an independent State. Besides, its leaders are not recognized by the International community. The United States support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and want that the status of Nagorno Karabakh be determined by negotiations among Minsk group’s co-chairs. The United States do are strongly committed in Nagorno Karabakh peace process, in the framework of OSCE Minsk group. And we hail the ongoing negotiations between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Ministers of Foreign Affairs', precised the US State Department."
The article states further, "Armenia, by supplying a military, technical, economic, and diplomatic aid to Nagorno Karabakh’s Armenians, and in fact by actively taking part in the annexation of a part of Azerbaijan’s territory, fundamentally violates International Law."
What going on? All those displaced persons. Can't something be done to settle this?
Remember Hitler’s quote “Who remembers the Armenians”?
The Turks are just another bunch of fanatic Muslims and the Armenians are just another group of Christians they exterminated. The Kurds helped by stealing and raping their women, turing their children into Muslims themselves.
The phony face of official neutrality on religion doesn;t fool me and it shouldn;t fool anyone else.
We may have dalliances with various Islamic powers when it suits our best interest, but our ultimate best interest is to destroy them all before they reciprocate and destroy us.
Would the author ask Armenia to drop it's demands that the U.S. and other countries call it "genocide?" Currently Armenia will not accept an ambassador from the U.S. unless our government acknowledges the horrific deaths as genocide. Are we permitted to recognize that hundreds of thousands of Turks and others died also? ARMENIA MAY NOT HAVE US AMBASSADOR FOR SOME MORE TIME (their caps)
It's going to take movement from both sides.
Meanwhile we have one million displaced persons in the South Caucasus, don't they matter? What's Armenia and Azerbaijan doing to take care of them? Has that problem been fixed?
Yes, you are certainly permtitted to say so my good friend - take that from a Serb.
Short note: The people that worry me the most are the ones that don't know. And, they don't know that they don't know.
I hope that's clear.
Chapter XXIV. The murder of a nation
Some of the other later chapters also have relevant information.
There was reporting at the time. I'd tend to take the word of Ambassador Morgenthau, who resigned over US inaction, and Raphael Lemkin who coined the word genocide, and was initially motivated by the Armenian slaughter.
To my knowledge it has no legal impact at all. The perpetrators of genocide can be criminally prosecuted, but issues like insurance, bank accounts, and property are separate matters, which imo should be dealt with. Calling it "genocide" would certainly apply moral pressure to companies involved, but there'd be no legal advantage.
I will read Ambassador Morgenthau’s report linked in response 12 here.
Folks I do want to express one reservation on my part though, and that’s the issue of reporting. While this is one man’s observation being conveyed, I have to remind you of what I see in the press today. There are times when it doesn’t seem to come close to an accurate unbiased report.
Am I going to run into the same thing here? Who would know?
I’ve become quite suspect of how history is related to future generations.
I’ll read the report. I do appreciate the link. I’ll come back and make some comments.
There are reasons for the insistence on genocide even though Turkey acknowledges that the deaths and suffering were horrific. Turkey does ask that the hundreds of thousands of others be acknowledged also; makes sense to me.
There's a lot of talk on the net about reparations even demands from other victims of the Ottoman Empire that Turkey pay reparations -- and even give up territory. As I understand it it was the Europeans who established modern Turkey's borders. Go figure.
I cannot forget Turkey the good friend, ally, and NATO member throughout the Cold War. They have forces in Afghanistan today and I believed commanded the operations in turn with other NATO members.
Armenia was a "republic" in the USSR. My cursory investigation indicates to me that Armenia consistently sides with Russia today, Russia I believe is still considered a country of interest to us, we should be wary IOW.
There's got to be a reason. It's only a word to describe what no one disputes was a horrific series of events.
Armenia, et al will not let up; meanwhile there are perhaps one million displaced citizens today in their own backyard. None will suffer the horror of the W.W.I-era refugees let us pray.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.