Tweet
Armenica.org
October 2, 2005
Editorial: Turkey Swings Back and Forth
By Ake Daun
Turkey's negotiations with EU start on October 3. Confronted with the
demands for freedom of speech, the Turkish government has turned on its
heel. The conference in Istanbul, entitled `Ottoman Armenians during the
decline of the Empire', which was stopped shortly before its opening on
May 25, was instead rescheduled for September 23-25.
In May, the minister of justice described the conference as `a stab in
the back of the Turkish nation'. The participants were risking
prosecution. In August, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül declared instead:
`Turkey does not avoid discussing the Armenian Question. We have nothing
to fear. Let the Turkish general public discuss this issue under calm
conditions and draw its own conclusions'.
On Thursday, September 22, just before the opening, the conference was
stopped once again. The denial of the Christian minority genocide in
that beginning of the 20th century has been official policy since 1920s.
The Armenian Question has been as taboo as the Kurdish one. At the same
time the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk is charged with the crime against
the `Turkish national identity'. He has mentioned the Armenian
Genocide.
But in order to mark its change of position, the Turkish state has
decided to spend one and a half million (US Dollars) on the
reconstruction of the Armenian church of Sourp Khatch on the Akhtamar
Island, a architectural treasure from the old Great Armenia. The measure
is a sensation, keeping in mind the large number of churches in the old
Armenian areas which have been left to fall into disrepair.
Regardless to the fact whether a positive social change is politically
forced on or not, it should be confronted with respect ` without malice!
It will be a gift from history to the next generation, which will be
spared to bear the legacy of its forefather's inability.
It is though problematic that Turkey has several contradictory centres
of power. When the conference was stopped with threat of prosecuting the
participants, the organizers decided to move the conference from the two
state universities of Bosporus and Sabanci to the foundation owned Bilgi
University which could be excluded from the court jurisdiction. The
court decision had met by government's anger, who, at the prospect of
starting the EU membership negotiations, did not wish for any new
spanner into the works. Foreign Minister Gül bitterly noted that `few
countries in the world are so skilled in damaging themselves so much.'
But the lawyers have not given up so easily. According to the Internet
edition of a Turkish newspaper, the same group who threatened the
organizers of the conference with legal actions, now asked the Chief
Prosecutor to raise charges against 17 of the involved people in the
conference at the Bilgi University. Among the names on the list are also
Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gül, who have been forced to
join those who committed crime against the `Turkish national identity'.
The quite peculiar situation seems to have aroused ` or actually is
asserting more clearly than ever that the Turkish foreign policy is
driven only partially by its government.
>From government's direction there is, at the prospect of the EU
negotiations, a more conciliatory posture than before. A similar opening
has not been given in the Cyprus question, which could put a stop to the
EU entry. Turkey does not recognise Cyprus as a state. It is difficult
to consider this as a negotiation manoeuvre. That a member country would
not recognise another member country is as imaginable as unrealistic.
With some knowledge about the Ottoman Empire the posture of Turkey is
more comprehensible. The Greeks were actually involved in the same
history which resulted in the Armenian Genocide. Both were Christian
minorities in the mighty Turkish state. The other subjected Christians
were the Assyrian-Syrians and the Chaldeans. They carry on the same
memory. Even the Greeks are waiting for Turkey to make up with its
bloody past.
The history ` which has a much longer political background history ` is
in short the following: In 1878 Turkey was forced to give up Cyprus to
Great Britain, one of many decisions which altered the history of the
Ottoman Empire. In 1960 Cyprus became an independent state, ruled by
Greek-Cypriot president and a Turkish-Cypriot vice president. The mere
fact that these two could not fall into each other's arms should have
been realised much sooner.
Let us study Eastern Anatolia from a different hypothetical perspective,
i.e. the old Armenian nucleus area in Turkey. Imagine that it has become
an independent state with an Armenian president and a Turkish vice
president (yes, as unrealistic as Cyprus!). Then imagine that the
country, after internal conflicts, have been divided in an
Armenian-Anatolian part and a Turkish-Anatolian part. Imagine that the
Turks had made the Turkish part to a federal state within Turkey and
nine years later declared it as an independent state, illegal according
to the UN Security Council.
And finally. Imagine that our virtually Armenian-Anatolian government
have applied for EU membership and has received it in 2004. What would
EU had said if Turkey then refused to accept the demands of EU about
recognition of this Armenian ruled country, already an EU state?
Turkey had most likely reacted in the same recalcitrant manner as the
country has done in the reality in regard to Cyprus. Does this long
grievous history belong to the kind out of the possibility range of the
diplomats? Maybe all the factors which decide the outcome already in
place. I do not think so.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Ake Daun is professor in ethnology at the Nordiska musset and Stockholm
University. Daun's speciality is within the field of European culture.
He has been editorial writer for Dagens Nyheter and the TCO newspaper
and is often consulted expert and lecturer in ethnical issues.
http://www.armenica.org/history/en/ledare051002.html
October 2, 2005
Editorial: Turkey Swings Back and Forth
By Ake Daun
Turkey's negotiations with EU start on October 3. Confronted with the
demands for freedom of speech, the Turkish government has turned on its
heel. The conference in Istanbul, entitled `Ottoman Armenians during the
decline of the Empire', which was stopped shortly before its opening on
May 25, was instead rescheduled for September 23-25.
In May, the minister of justice described the conference as `a stab in
the back of the Turkish nation'. The participants were risking
prosecution. In August, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül declared instead:
`Turkey does not avoid discussing the Armenian Question. We have nothing
to fear. Let the Turkish general public discuss this issue under calm
conditions and draw its own conclusions'.
On Thursday, September 22, just before the opening, the conference was
stopped once again. The denial of the Christian minority genocide in
that beginning of the 20th century has been official policy since 1920s.
The Armenian Question has been as taboo as the Kurdish one. At the same
time the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk is charged with the crime against
the `Turkish national identity'. He has mentioned the Armenian
Genocide.
But in order to mark its change of position, the Turkish state has
decided to spend one and a half million (US Dollars) on the
reconstruction of the Armenian church of Sourp Khatch on the Akhtamar
Island, a architectural treasure from the old Great Armenia. The measure
is a sensation, keeping in mind the large number of churches in the old
Armenian areas which have been left to fall into disrepair.
Regardless to the fact whether a positive social change is politically
forced on or not, it should be confronted with respect ` without malice!
It will be a gift from history to the next generation, which will be
spared to bear the legacy of its forefather's inability.
It is though problematic that Turkey has several contradictory centres
of power. When the conference was stopped with threat of prosecuting the
participants, the organizers decided to move the conference from the two
state universities of Bosporus and Sabanci to the foundation owned Bilgi
University which could be excluded from the court jurisdiction. The
court decision had met by government's anger, who, at the prospect of
starting the EU membership negotiations, did not wish for any new
spanner into the works. Foreign Minister Gül bitterly noted that `few
countries in the world are so skilled in damaging themselves so much.'
But the lawyers have not given up so easily. According to the Internet
edition of a Turkish newspaper, the same group who threatened the
organizers of the conference with legal actions, now asked the Chief
Prosecutor to raise charges against 17 of the involved people in the
conference at the Bilgi University. Among the names on the list are also
Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gül, who have been forced to
join those who committed crime against the `Turkish national identity'.
The quite peculiar situation seems to have aroused ` or actually is
asserting more clearly than ever that the Turkish foreign policy is
driven only partially by its government.
>From government's direction there is, at the prospect of the EU
negotiations, a more conciliatory posture than before. A similar opening
has not been given in the Cyprus question, which could put a stop to the
EU entry. Turkey does not recognise Cyprus as a state. It is difficult
to consider this as a negotiation manoeuvre. That a member country would
not recognise another member country is as imaginable as unrealistic.
With some knowledge about the Ottoman Empire the posture of Turkey is
more comprehensible. The Greeks were actually involved in the same
history which resulted in the Armenian Genocide. Both were Christian
minorities in the mighty Turkish state. The other subjected Christians
were the Assyrian-Syrians and the Chaldeans. They carry on the same
memory. Even the Greeks are waiting for Turkey to make up with its
bloody past.
The history ` which has a much longer political background history ` is
in short the following: In 1878 Turkey was forced to give up Cyprus to
Great Britain, one of many decisions which altered the history of the
Ottoman Empire. In 1960 Cyprus became an independent state, ruled by
Greek-Cypriot president and a Turkish-Cypriot vice president. The mere
fact that these two could not fall into each other's arms should have
been realised much sooner.
Let us study Eastern Anatolia from a different hypothetical perspective,
i.e. the old Armenian nucleus area in Turkey. Imagine that it has become
an independent state with an Armenian president and a Turkish vice
president (yes, as unrealistic as Cyprus!). Then imagine that the
country, after internal conflicts, have been divided in an
Armenian-Anatolian part and a Turkish-Anatolian part. Imagine that the
Turks had made the Turkish part to a federal state within Turkey and
nine years later declared it as an independent state, illegal according
to the UN Security Council.
And finally. Imagine that our virtually Armenian-Anatolian government
have applied for EU membership and has received it in 2004. What would
EU had said if Turkey then refused to accept the demands of EU about
recognition of this Armenian ruled country, already an EU state?
Turkey had most likely reacted in the same recalcitrant manner as the
country has done in the reality in regard to Cyprus. Does this long
grievous history belong to the kind out of the possibility range of the
diplomats? Maybe all the factors which decide the outcome already in
place. I do not think so.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Ake Daun is professor in ethnology at the Nordiska musset and Stockholm
University. Daun's speciality is within the field of European culture.
He has been editorial writer for Dagens Nyheter and the TCO newspaper
and is often consulted expert and lecturer in ethnical issues.
http://www.armenica.org/history/en/ledare051002.html