Tweet
The Armenian problem (I)
OPINIONS
TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI
Saturday, May 7, 2005
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.
We shall continue this topic in tomorrow's editorial.
OPINIONS
TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI
Saturday, May 7, 2005
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.
We shall continue this topic in tomorrow's editorial.