Tweet
SLAVERY AND JUSTICE REPORT MISLEADS ON ARMENIAN 'GENOCIDE'
by Ozge Can Ozcanli, Cengiz Pehlevan and Mert Akdere
The Brown Daily Herald, RI
Dec 6 2006
PrintEmail Article Tools Page 1 of 1 For centuries - longer than
the lifetime of the United States - the Christian and the Muslim
population of the Ottoman Empire had lived peacefully in Anatolia.
However, with the decline of Ottoman rule, nationalistic movements
began to tear the empire apart. In the 19th and early 20th century,
the Balkan nations gained independence, and with considerable help
from European and Russian interventions, relations between Muslims and
Christian Armenians in modern-day eastern Turkey began to degenerate.
Many aspects of this history still need to be illuminated through
objective studies; however, many historians agree that, during
World War I, the Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia rose in an
armed revolt in alliance with Russia, the enemy of the Ottomans. This
revolt was viewed as a security threat and the empire ordered a forced
relocation of Armenians from the region. During the relocation process,
hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by famine, epidemics
or by attacks from Muslim gangs and some corrupt policemen.
The Turkish government, together with many international historians,
refuses the contention that these unfortunate events represented an
organized, one-sided "genocide" such as what took place recently in
Rwanda. The debate around this issue - whether the word "genocide"
should be used to describe the killings - is very sensitive for both
ethnic Turks and Armenians.
An observant mind can recognize an interesting connection between the
debate surrounding these killings, the recent visit of Nobel Prize
recipient Orhan Pamuk's visit to Brown and the October report of the
University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice. The middle
section of the report proposes the killings of Armenians during
World War I as an undeniable example of genocide; Pamuk, meanwhile,
had recently talked about these killings in an interview and, as
emphasized many times by the press, he "faced potential jail time"
in Turkey as a result.
This contributed to his image as a repressed writer, making him seem
like a perfect participant at the Freedom to Write Literary Festival
at Brown. However, unlike the festival's other participants, none of
Pamuk's books have been banned, nor has he ever been imprisoned. On
the contrary, he has been one of the best-selling authors in Turkey.
As for "potential jail time," Pamuk was indeed charged under the
controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, but his trial
never started; the court dropped it under a technicality (undoubtedly
a result of popular opposition).
Turkey's Article 301, which is also mentioned in the slavery and
sustice report, is often misrepresented or misunderstood. The
article does not specifically forbid talking about the Armenian
killings or terming them genocide. It forbids "public denigration
of Turkishness," and since it is vaguely worded, it is often misused
by zealous prosecutors in cases such as Pamuk's. Criticisms of such
misuses and the anti-democratic nature of the article have followed
deservedly from both Turkish and international society.
However, it should be clarified that no one in Turkey has been put into
prison for terming Armenian killings a "genocide" based on Article
301. On the contrary, despite Pamuk's claims that no one except him
talks about the killings, the genocide claim is being debated among
Turkish scholars just like it is in other countries.
Ironically, some exemplary democracies such as Switzerland and France
are passing legislation specifically to ban the freedom to say that the
Armenian killings were not genocide. Other countries, like Canada and
Belgium, have passed resolutions to recognize the events officially as
"genocide."
This political campaign is absurd given the fact that there is
no consensus among historians regarding the issue. Distinguished
scholars of Ottoman history like Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz,
Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy, among many others, have rejected the
genocide label for the atrocities committed in Eastern Anatolia during
World War I. Moreover, in the United States, historical scholars
mobilized in 1985 against a similar Armenian Genocide Resolution
proposed by politicians in the House of Representatives.
Over 60 American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and
Middle Eastern studies from prominent universities such as Princeton,
Columbia and University of California - Los Angeles wrote a letter
to the House, which was simultaneously published in the New York Times:
"... As for the charge of 'genocide' no signatory of this statement
wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering... throughout
the years in question, the (Eastern Anatolian) region was the scene
of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has
gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among
both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But
much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to
sort out precisely... the (nature of) the events which resulted in the
death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population,
Christian and Muslim alike."
One of the authors of this letter, Stanford Shaw, was threatened by
a bomb attack to his house in 1977 by an Armenian terrorist group.
Armenian fanatics did not hesitate to use terror during the 1970s and
1980s in an attempt to force Turkey to accept the term "genocide"
and agree to land reparations. Unfortunately, a total of 41 people
lost their lives in over 200 terrorist attacks in 20 countries as a
direct result of this campaign.
It is na've to think that proponents of the genocide theory are
engaged in a mere quest for truth, given that historical debate is
being stifled and Turkey's attempts to engage in this debate are
being turned down. As recently as March 2005, Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan invited the Armenian government to establish a
joint commission of Turkish, Armenian and international historians
to investigate archives of all related countries and sort out the
true nature of the events that transpired. The offer was rejected -
by Armenia.
Ironically, the slavery and justice report dedicates a good portion of
its volume to such "Truth Commissions" and counts them as a rubric of
reparative justice. However, for some reason the report never mentions
Turkey's invitations but claims the country is in constant denial.
It is rather disappointing that in a report prepared by academics
at Brown in the name of truth and justice, the debate surrounding
this issue - and Turkey's attempts to investigate it objectively -
has been ignored completely.
Ozge Can Ozcanli GS, Cengiz Pehlevan GS and Mert Akdere GS are members
of the Brown Turkish Cultural Society.
http://www.browndailyherald.com/media/st orage/paper472/news/2006/12/06/Columns/Ozge-Can.Oz canli.Gs.Cengiz.Pehlevan.Gs.And.Mert.Akdere.Gs.Sla very.And.Justice.Re-2524602.shtml?norewrite2006120 61624&sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com
by Ozge Can Ozcanli, Cengiz Pehlevan and Mert Akdere
The Brown Daily Herald, RI
Dec 6 2006
PrintEmail Article Tools Page 1 of 1 For centuries - longer than
the lifetime of the United States - the Christian and the Muslim
population of the Ottoman Empire had lived peacefully in Anatolia.
However, with the decline of Ottoman rule, nationalistic movements
began to tear the empire apart. In the 19th and early 20th century,
the Balkan nations gained independence, and with considerable help
from European and Russian interventions, relations between Muslims and
Christian Armenians in modern-day eastern Turkey began to degenerate.
Many aspects of this history still need to be illuminated through
objective studies; however, many historians agree that, during
World War I, the Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia rose in an
armed revolt in alliance with Russia, the enemy of the Ottomans. This
revolt was viewed as a security threat and the empire ordered a forced
relocation of Armenians from the region. During the relocation process,
hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by famine, epidemics
or by attacks from Muslim gangs and some corrupt policemen.
The Turkish government, together with many international historians,
refuses the contention that these unfortunate events represented an
organized, one-sided "genocide" such as what took place recently in
Rwanda. The debate around this issue - whether the word "genocide"
should be used to describe the killings - is very sensitive for both
ethnic Turks and Armenians.
An observant mind can recognize an interesting connection between the
debate surrounding these killings, the recent visit of Nobel Prize
recipient Orhan Pamuk's visit to Brown and the October report of the
University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice. The middle
section of the report proposes the killings of Armenians during
World War I as an undeniable example of genocide; Pamuk, meanwhile,
had recently talked about these killings in an interview and, as
emphasized many times by the press, he "faced potential jail time"
in Turkey as a result.
This contributed to his image as a repressed writer, making him seem
like a perfect participant at the Freedom to Write Literary Festival
at Brown. However, unlike the festival's other participants, none of
Pamuk's books have been banned, nor has he ever been imprisoned. On
the contrary, he has been one of the best-selling authors in Turkey.
As for "potential jail time," Pamuk was indeed charged under the
controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, but his trial
never started; the court dropped it under a technicality (undoubtedly
a result of popular opposition).
Turkey's Article 301, which is also mentioned in the slavery and
sustice report, is often misrepresented or misunderstood. The
article does not specifically forbid talking about the Armenian
killings or terming them genocide. It forbids "public denigration
of Turkishness," and since it is vaguely worded, it is often misused
by zealous prosecutors in cases such as Pamuk's. Criticisms of such
misuses and the anti-democratic nature of the article have followed
deservedly from both Turkish and international society.
However, it should be clarified that no one in Turkey has been put into
prison for terming Armenian killings a "genocide" based on Article
301. On the contrary, despite Pamuk's claims that no one except him
talks about the killings, the genocide claim is being debated among
Turkish scholars just like it is in other countries.
Ironically, some exemplary democracies such as Switzerland and France
are passing legislation specifically to ban the freedom to say that the
Armenian killings were not genocide. Other countries, like Canada and
Belgium, have passed resolutions to recognize the events officially as
"genocide."
This political campaign is absurd given the fact that there is
no consensus among historians regarding the issue. Distinguished
scholars of Ottoman history like Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz,
Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy, among many others, have rejected the
genocide label for the atrocities committed in Eastern Anatolia during
World War I. Moreover, in the United States, historical scholars
mobilized in 1985 against a similar Armenian Genocide Resolution
proposed by politicians in the House of Representatives.
Over 60 American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and
Middle Eastern studies from prominent universities such as Princeton,
Columbia and University of California - Los Angeles wrote a letter
to the House, which was simultaneously published in the New York Times:
"... As for the charge of 'genocide' no signatory of this statement
wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering... throughout
the years in question, the (Eastern Anatolian) region was the scene
of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has
gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among
both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But
much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to
sort out precisely... the (nature of) the events which resulted in the
death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population,
Christian and Muslim alike."
One of the authors of this letter, Stanford Shaw, was threatened by
a bomb attack to his house in 1977 by an Armenian terrorist group.
Armenian fanatics did not hesitate to use terror during the 1970s and
1980s in an attempt to force Turkey to accept the term "genocide"
and agree to land reparations. Unfortunately, a total of 41 people
lost their lives in over 200 terrorist attacks in 20 countries as a
direct result of this campaign.
It is na've to think that proponents of the genocide theory are
engaged in a mere quest for truth, given that historical debate is
being stifled and Turkey's attempts to engage in this debate are
being turned down. As recently as March 2005, Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan invited the Armenian government to establish a
joint commission of Turkish, Armenian and international historians
to investigate archives of all related countries and sort out the
true nature of the events that transpired. The offer was rejected -
by Armenia.
Ironically, the slavery and justice report dedicates a good portion of
its volume to such "Truth Commissions" and counts them as a rubric of
reparative justice. However, for some reason the report never mentions
Turkey's invitations but claims the country is in constant denial.
It is rather disappointing that in a report prepared by academics
at Brown in the name of truth and justice, the debate surrounding
this issue - and Turkey's attempts to investigate it objectively -
has been ignored completely.
Ozge Can Ozcanli GS, Cengiz Pehlevan GS and Mert Akdere GS are members
of the Brown Turkish Cultural Society.
http://www.browndailyherald.com/media/st orage/paper472/news/2006/12/06/Columns/Ozge-Can.Oz canli.Gs.Cengiz.Pehlevan.Gs.And.Mert.Akdere.Gs.Sla very.And.Justice.Re-2524602.shtml?norewrite2006120 61624&sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com