Tweet
LIVE TV DEBATE: 32ND DAY "ON THE APOLOGY STATEMENT"
Keghart.com
http://www.keghart.co m/op175.htm
Dec 26 2008
While every effort is made to accurately reproduce the statements of
participants and give the exact back and forth exchange during the
debate, some omissions are made and the statements that the same
person uttered at slightly different points of the conversation
are occasionally combined for brevity. Any comments and corrections
regarding the translation and/or the transcript are welcome. Mete Pamir
Participants:
For: Dr. Cengiz Aktar; Ret. Ambassador Temel Ä°skit and Journalist
Oral CalıÅ~_lar
Against: Ret. Ambassador Å~^ukru Elekdag MP CHP, Ret. Ambassador
Deniz BölukbaÅ~_ı MP MHP, and Ret. Ambassador Candan Azer
Birand: Welcome. Tonight, we're going to discuss a very important issue
that is older than the Republic, a discussion that is condemned to
irresolution for 93 years. A group of our intellectuals have started a
campaign regarding what Ottoman Armenians went through in 1915. We are
going to talk about their apology statement in which they apologize to
our Armenian brothers and sisters. At the root of the issue lies what
happened to the Armenians in 1915: is this a catastrophe, genocide
or deportation? Should we apologize? To whom and for what should
one apologize? We have representatives in our studio who defend two
opposing viewpoints: those who say yes, one should apologize and those
who say no, there is no need for it. I want to begin by asking Cengiz
Aktar first: why are we supposed to apologize, to whom and for what?
Aktar: The apology is already made. 230 intellectuals and
opinion-makers started this campaign and 13.500 citizens of Turkey have
already apologized in two-three days. We apologized for not being able
to talk about this for many years, because it was a monologue for so
long, because we looked at this matter from only one perspective. We
are also apologizing for not being able to share the pain of our
Armenian brothers and sisters to a sufficient extent. This is a very
gentle, altruistic and compassionate message (muÅ~_fik, digerkâm,
and duygudaÅ~_). We don't address ourselves to anyone [to any official
instance], we are addressing the apology to ourselves.
Birand: Yes, a lot of people are asking: are they saying that we have
committed genocide and apologizing for it? Oral CalıÅ~_lar you are
one of those who signed.
CalıÅ~_lar: Genocide term is not used in the statement. Among
the signatories there are also persons who don't think this was
genocide. The apology is about a great catastrophe and pain; it is
directed to those who are not with us any more, to those who cannot
live in Turkey. We apologize for the pain caused to hundreds of
thousands of Armenians, to their children and grandchildren. We are
not saying everyone should share the pain, it is not obligatory: those
who want to share do apologize, those who don't want to don't. The
apology is because this issue could not be discussed for so long. We
lost Hrant Dink for this reason. He was condemned because he said in
the end that there was genocide. He was declared an enemy by certain
quarters in front of the public opinion. And we lost him. It is not
unproblematic in Turkey to say that this was genocide. There are people
who cannot express their opinions and those who, like Dink, expressed
themselves recently and those who expressed themselves also in 1915.
Birand: Let me read the statement for our viewers: "My conscience
does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the
Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in
1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathize with the
feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologize
to them." The important term here is Great Catastrophe. Armenians
say that Great Catastrophe is genocide.
Ä°skit: I signed the statement hoping that it was a non-political
statement. I signed this as a matter of personal conscience, aa
a matter of freedom of expression and a debt that I felt I owed. I
particularly wanted to show my reaction to the denial. This is a civil
society movement; it is different than the political sphere. This
is not an issue about whether this was a genocide or not... This
statement does not represent a compromise. In that case it would have
been political.
Elekdag: Firstly, they are referring to Great Catastrophe; this is
Metz Yeghern in Armenian. This word is a synonym for genocide. The
difference between the two words is as little as the difference
between mass slaughter and mass killing (kitle katliamı" and kitlesel
öldurme). There is no difference between them. When Metz Yeghern
is used, Armenians understand genocide. When some official person
goes to Armenia, visits the Monument and wishes to condemn genocide
as well as not to offend the Turkish Republic they use Metz Yeghern;
and Armenians accept this. This statement is tantamount to supporting
the genocide campaign of the Armenian Diaspora. It would have been
alright to use terms like great tragedy or pain. The concept of
Great Catastrophe is an established term; it has a loaded meaning
which is very difficult to change. Therefore, it naturally causes
reactions. Secondly, it is important that the statement uses the
word "denial." The word "denial" is commonly used by the Armenian
Diaspora and in Armenia against those who say that there was no
genocide. "Denying" is not a normal word; when "denialist" is used,
those with opposing viewpoints are meant. This is not an innocent
word either. It is part of the jargon used by Armenians...
Aktar: Metz Yeghern is a word from the time of 1915. The term
genocide and its basis in international law is from 1948. From 1915
until 1948, the Armenian people who were subjected to this [calamity]
were of course going to give a name to it. We used the name that they
themselves used [for a long time]. This is not a discussion about
genocide [terminology]. Temel Ä°skit is spot on about this. We are not
going to discuss genocide here, are we? If you are going to boil down
our discussion tonight to whether there was genocide or not, let's
not talk further; let's just end the discussion right here and go home.
Azer: Of course, it is fortunate that the word genocide is not used in
the apology statement. However, as Mr. Elekdag mentioned, even today in
Armenian there is not such a word as genocide. They use Metz Yeghern
instead. For example, when previous Pope went to Armenia and visited
the Genocide Monument, he used the word Metz Yeghern while signing the
memorial book. We were happy about this. Armenians were even happier.
Producer Akar: What does the US President use in April 24? Does he
not use Great Catastrophe?
Elekdag: No, he mentions a tragedy. It is not like Great Catastrophe
has never been used in USA. In fact, it was used. But at that time,
these things were not established to such an extent. There might
have been points of time in the past that Turkey neglected to pay
attention. Today, Metz Yeghern is a totally established term. And it
is synonymous with genocide. It is not possible to understand this
statement any differently. If they don't want this statement to be
interpreted in this way, I think it will be a good idea for them to
prepare an additional statement and declare that they did not intent
to say that it was genocide. The intended meaning in this version is
genocide; it is impossible to understand it otherwise.
CalıÅ~_lar: We're not in a position to give an account of anything
to state officials here (devlet buyuklerine hesap vermek). We're
not on trial here. I can state whatever I like as a citizen. It is
up me alone to decide my intended meaning. Mr. Elekdag can interpret
it his way. This is my right as a citizen. It is important to stress
this because people have been put on trial for these things in this
country. Turkey has done shameful things about these issues (ayıplı
ulkedi). Hrant Dink was put on trial and condemned for violating
Article 301, and look what happened to him in the end. This is very
recent history, not old history.
Elekdag: We're not talking about Hrant Dink. Dink was not only your
friend. He was our friend as well.
Birand: Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı, [leader of your party, MHP] Devlet
Bahceli said that he is ashamed of the individuals who signed the
statement. Are you also ashamed of them?
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Yes, I too am ashamed of them. I should start by
giving an exposition and concrete examples about the wider meaning,
goals and consequences of this initiative. This is not just a one time
or sporadic initiative. It is a new stage in a process that has been
developing for the last two-three years. In tandem with the "virtual"
membership accession to EU, a class of persons who are on staff to
make statements has emerged in Turkey (kadrolu bildiriciler). We are
seeing the same persons again and again in such initiatives regarding
Turkish history, national identity and state structures. They are on
commission to make these things. They are volunteering for these. For
these people, it has been a status symbol to blacken our history --
i.e. a symbol of proving how Western and modern they are. It has
been an academic and political career path to run after the lie of
Armenian genocide. At one time, Armenia officially demanded that
Article 301 was removed so that there could be a lobby to discuss
genocide within Turkey. This was set as a pre-condition for starting
negotiations. Armenia officially forwarded this request to Turkish
Minister of Foreign Affairs. Look, secret negotiations have been going
on with Armenia in Bern for the last two years. At this stage, Armenia
is not putting forward genocide recognition as a pre-condition; they
are calculating that recognition will come in any case during the EU
process; for this reason they are thinking that it is enough to take
steps so that Turkish society itself can face its past. Therefore, to
say that genocide is not used in this statement in no way changes the
meaning and goals of this statement. I want to ask Ambassador Ä°skit:
among the Armenian brothers to whom he apologized, are members of
ASALA included? And also how did he manage to repress his opinions
during all his 40 years in [diplomatic] service?
Ä°skit: I don't think I'm obliged to give an account about my feelings
to my colleague Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı. But, let me explain to you why I
oppose the denial. It is not like I repressed this for years. In my
diplomatic career I gradually realized that there was a big denial and
concealment. I realized that some pages of our history were missing. It
was as if some events had never happened. I did not read anything about
these things in any book or newspaper until the 1980s. Our thinking in
Foreign Affairs developed through stages over several years. It didn't
happen all of a sudden: First, there was a big silence about these
things in the Ministry. I strongly reacted against this. The total
silence about the events evolved into [the claim of] mutual killings
(mukatele) by the slow opening of new pages. My conscience is clear
[about my years in diplomatic service]. The ASALA question: this is an
issue that is continuously brought forward in other contexts as well,
but we shouldn't confuse these two issues. ASALA is a great tragedy
for me personally and for my professional community; but this is not
a matter of two accounts, one offsetting the other (mahsup meselesi
degil). It is not a matter of one tragedy here, another there balancing
each other; it is not a matter of how many people were killed on
our side, and how many on their side. I of course condemn terrorism;
I of course wish that the whole world apologizes for ASALA killings;
but here I'm apologizing for the Great Catastrophe in 1915.
Aktar: There is nothing to respond to in Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı's
comments. You are asking me to respond to his comments about EU? You,
Mehmet Ali Birand, would be much more qualified than me to speak
about EU. But there is a real sociological basis to the observation
that these things are related to the EU process. This is important and
pertains to our recent history. Turkey is in a process of change since
the 1980s, since late Ozal. Turkey was a closed and inward-looking
country until 1983. Especially after 1999, Turkey opened to the world,
the country literally blossomed (kabak cicegi gibi acıldı). And EU
process greatly contributed to this. The djinns are out of the bottle,
and it is not possible to put these back in. People started putting
taboos into question. This is not only the case for the Armenian
issue. It is also true for the rights of women, homosexuals, Alevis. It
is also about honour killings; about Kurdish issue and democratization.
For this reason, we need to look forward, not back. I did not prepare
this statement. 250 people prepared it. This is not a campaign
or petition; it is a statement. Apology statement is the voice of
conscience, because they were not able to speak about this for 90
years. How else could 13.500 Turkish persons (Turk insanı) come out
and apologize in just three days? Everyone should ask this important
question: these people said that they behaved shamefully. These
are important concepts in Anatolia: shame/disgrace (ayıp) and sin
(gunah). Intellectuals do not know [the weight of these concepts]
to a sufficient degree. Anatolians know it. These people came out
into the open.
Elekdag: 30.000 other people came out and said that there is no
such thing. It was in fact possible to discuss a great many of these
issues previously.
Aktar: Let it be so [that 30.000 signed a counter-statement]. What is
important is for these things to be discussed. No, it wasn't possible
to discuss these before.
Azer: Mr. Ä°skit told us that our history was "concealed" from us
(saklandı). I don't think concealed is the right word. Of course, the
events of 1915 were not taught to us neither in primary school nor at
the universities. It is more correct to say that we did not know our
history. They did not teach our history because it was something we
left behind and moved beyond. The last years of Ottoman were not told
because we were going forward in the years of Republic. We started
learning and teaching our history when our classmates started getting
killed. Then, we scientifically proved that all the allegations were
false one by one: such as the telegram of Talat Pasha, the quote that
is attributed to Hitler, the actual numbers that were deported or
were subject to genocide as Armenians say. When the terror stopped,
we unfortunately stopped showing attention to our history once
again. For example, when Mr. Elekdag was Washington ambassador in
1985, 68 scientists signed a statement and said that 1915 could not be
characterized as genocide. But we didn't follow up. We don't pursue
the matter consistently, our interest flares up when there is a vote
in Congress, and after the vote we lose interest. We should know our
history. Our history is no longer hidden; it is out in the open.
CalıÅ~_lar: Let me give you an example. At a symposium in Kayseri
University, an Associate Professor said that Mimar Sinan [the great
16th-century Ottoman architect] was [ethnically] Turkish. I asked
the symposium what is the point of claiming this, everyone knows
that he was Armenian; he came from the Armenian village Agırnas
[in Kayseri]. There is no need to distort history; this may also show
the superiority of Ottomans in incorporating minorities to culture of
the Empire. The professor approached me during the break and told me
that he had actually written what I told to the symposium, but that
they had removed those pages [from his article]. We still think that
we can change history just by tearing some pages. You can't change
history like this. The world understands the truth in the end. The
real question is how we are going to understand and see ourselves. We
see the lived pain when we travel in Anatolia. I personally know tens
of people whose paternal or maternal grandmothers are Armenian. Where
did these people come from, did they come from outer space? Obviously,
these have stayed there as a result of a great pain and tragedy. The
female children who were left behind became grandmothers to a great
many of us. We started learning these recently, after terrorism started
and our diplomats got killed. And I also have classmates among those
who were killed. This is something that should be condemned. But
these are two different matters.
Azer: Yes, many people have died at that time. A minute ago I mentioned
68 scientists' statement. They have also established that. Many people
have died due climate conditions and malnutrition.
CalıÅ~_lar No, dear sir, there is a crime perpetrated by the state
here (devlet sucu). There was first a CUP decree sent to all provinces,
these instructions said to deport the people and take them to such and
such places. Then, there was a law. A few individuals in CUP decided
this, and then a law was passed in the Ottoman Parliament. There was
a state decision. Let's agree on this.
Azer: Yes, there was a state decision for the deportation.
Elekdag: We're not going to enter into those debates here, are we? You
are only telling part of what happened. There is a deportation
decision, of course. But this is done in legitimate self-defense
(meÅ~_ru mudafaa) during conditions of war. Russian army was
advancing. Armenians took up arms and joined that army. There were
chetes behind the front attacking the convoys. The greatest historians
in the world, like Bernard Lewis, Avigdor Levy, and Stanford Shaw
say that this was in self-defense. There was a state decision for
deportation, but there were also state decrees to act honestly and
protect the convoys. The state has shown "due diligence," but the
state could unfortunately not succeed in preventing all actions to
the contrary.
Aktar: OK, would you agree that we apologize just for this, just for
what you pointed out now [that the state could not prevent killings
despite showing due diligence]?
Elekdag: That's OK. But in that case, one should apologize from
both sides.
Aktar: In that case, excuse me, one should invoke this criterion:
Turks and Kurds are still living in the geographic area they used to
live, but Armenians are not there any more. There is an abnormality
here. This is not normal.
Elekdag: This is not a legitimate argument. Let me ask you: do you
know how many Turks and Muslims there were in Armenia and Yerevan in
the 1990s? Are there any left? These events are related to each other.
Aktar: Two wrongs do not cancel each other, and make it right. There
may have been wrongs done over there; and of course there is a
relation between the two. But this issue is our problem. I'm not
talking about Azerbaijan or about Armenia. I'm talking about our own
problem, about Ottoman Armenians. We're the grandchildren of Ottomans,
and I'm apologizing for the things that happened to them on the roads
during the deportation to Der Zor. Is it so bad to apologize for this?
Elekdag: In that case, one should look into the context of the
deportation decision. Between the end of 1914 and May 1915, Armenian
chetes killed 122.000 Turks. They annihilated these people. Then there
was a rebellion in Van. In one night, Armenians annihilated 35.000
Turks. Russian Czar sent a congratulations telegram to the head of
the Armenian resistance group (komita) for handing the place to the
Russian army. Did these things not happen?
Producer Akar: Now that we're talking about history, why were people
deported from Kocaeli, Kutahya and Usak. As far I know, there was
no chete activity in those places. Were these places in the battle
front too?
Elekdag: Armed resistance movements (komitacılar) had started
preparations there as well. We shouldn't forget that there were
Armenian craftsmen in towns; hundreds of Armenian doctors were
ranked officers in Ottoman army. Many villages were exempt from the
deportations. In the place of my ancestors, Kastamonu, the Armenian
population was untouched because they were not involved in this
business. In Istanbul, Armenians continued their duties as civil
servants.
Producer Akar: Please allow me to make a modest reminder about
history, Mr. Elekdag. In a report that CHP's 9th division, what is
known as the Bureau on Minorities, prepared in 1944, there is mention
of discomfort due to too much concentration of Armenian population in
Kastamonu. There are recommendations for sending them to Istanbul. In
other words, the same issue continued.
Elekdag: Please, don't interpret this in this way. If there is
discomfort, the intention of the recommendation there is to protect
those people.
Aktar: Especially women [were in the resistance in 1915, weren't
they?]. There is not one Armenian left in Anatolia. OK, let's accept
that people left. Do you think we could have protected churches and
[heritage] buildings better?
Elekdag: Now, who is able to protect such sites better in other places
(nerde korunuyor ki)? There are many Turkish buildings in Armenia
and Yerevan, are they being protected?
Aktar: I see, you're saying that others are not protecting such
sites in their countries, we shouldn't protect ours either. Right,
right! My god! (Hey Allahım).
Elekdag: No, I'm not saying that.
Azer: If I may, I want to ask something to Mr. Aktar. Did you
visit Ani?
Aktar: I visited in 1978.
Azer: I visited in 1992, also later, as part of my duties. There
are ruins in Ani. Parts of the ruins are over on the other side
of the river Arpacay, inside the borders of Armenia. They have not
protected them.
Aktar: They have a stone quarry.
Azer: We are protecting better. There are even fewer ruins inside
Armenian borders.
Aktar, CalıÅ~_lar and Iskit: But we are calling it Anı instead of
Ani, we are changing the name, we're not calling it Armenian.
Azer: No, I'm calling it Ani.
Ä°skit: We are not protecting it as an Armenian site. When I was
talking about denial earlier, I was also talking about the denial
today. I'm against using Anı instead of Ani. I'm against the fact
that the word Armenian today is used almost as an insult word. All
of these are part of the same issue.
Elekdag: In this statement you're referring to denialism. This is a
concept; and genocide concept is behind this denialism concept. Let's
talk about how we are going to solve this problem. Diaspora is
calling this genocide. Turkey is not calling it a genocide. Genocide
belief is intrinsic to the identity of Diaspora Armenians. It is
impossible to change this belief. In Turkey, there is a great mass
of people who oppose this. And they are not going to change their
beliefs either. They see this as an international plot against
them. Is this mutual animosity going to continue for generations
with no solution in sight? You cannot solve the issue like this. The
only solution is to conduct scientific research by staying away from
emotions and away from hatred. Turks and Armenians should establish an
international scientific commission comprising jurists and historians;
an internationally-recognized figure whom both sides will accept can
head this commission. I made this proposal years ago in diplomatic
service. Nobody listened inside the bureaucracy. Then, when I became
MP, I took the initiative ... and on 8 March 2005 Baykal [the leader
of CHP] and PM made the joint proposal regarding the commission of
Turkish and Armenian historians. PM declared that he will be ready
to accept the results of commission's discoveries whether they are
for us or against us. This is a great risk that we were not able to
take until now. Naturally, this proposal is about opening the archives
mutually. We have opened all the historical archives. Armenia is not
opening all the archives. We expect them to open. This is the way
to a solution. We would have expected our intellectuals to make a
statement supporting this proposal.
CalıÅ~_lar: The state and the politicians can make these proposals,
and we would respect such proposals. But we are citizens. We are
offering citizens' statements: we are saying that we don't want to
continue not sharing the pain. We are showing a humanistic response. As
a citizen, I don't feel myself bound by the decisions of Mr. Elekdag
or the PM.
Elekdag: But you are sharing the pain of one side.
CalıÅ~_lar: I'm sharing the pain of one side because I'm on one
side. If Armenians want to say they share the pain, it is up to
them. I'm doing my duty as a Turkish citizen. When I go to other
countries and meet with Armenians, I feel sad. I wish that these
painful events didn't take place. I put myself in their shoes,
I feel worse.
Elekdag: By doing that, you are acting against the interests of the
country. By doing what the Diaspora wants, you're acting against
Turkey's interests.
CalıÅ~_lar: You don't have the sole right to define what is and
what is not in Turkey's interests. I think an apology is in Turkey's
interests (Turkiye'Nin cıkarı da özurden geciyor). You are talking
about Turkey's political interests. I'm not bound by them. I'm a
citizen and free individual. This is my perspective.
Elekdag: Then let me ask you this. Of course, I wouldn't want to put
you on the spot.
But, are you saying that you weren't aware you are signing under a
document which says genocide?
CalıÅ~_lar: I have the right to my own opinions in this matter. When
I want to express them, I can express them anytime I want.
Elekdag: Are you not in a position to say whether there was one
[genocide] or there wasn't?
CalıÅ~_lar: I signed this statement without any preconditions about
whether there was a genocide or not. Each individual may have signed
it with different assumptions. Among the people who signed there are
those who say it was genocide and those who say it wasn't.
Elekdag: In that case, this helps the case of those who say it was
genocide. Does it not?
CalıÅ~_lar: By the way, genocide is not such a brutal word that we
should be afraid of. Genocide is just another opinion.
Azer: Don't you feel the pain of those who were massacred by the
Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I? Aren't you sorry
for the children, women and old people who were killed? Why didn't
you include them in the statement? If you had done that, then perhaps
I too would have signed it. This is a matter of balance. You cannot
walk on one foot; all you can do is jump.
CalıÅ~_lar: This is not issue whereby you add one account on top of
the other. We are changing rehearsed mantras (ezber bozuyoruz). If
you repeat that nothing has happened continuously for 93 years,
then I'll say that these things have happened. We, of course, know
that history as well, people were massacred by Armenians. The people
killed are our mothers and fathers.
Birand: I want to give the word to Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı. He has been very
patient. In the second part of the program, we should talk about what
to do if we are going to break this vicious circle.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: I will briefly touch upon some of the issues your
valuable guests mentioned. I'm not sure how credible it is to have
13.500 signatures in "virtual" space. I would suggest that you
leave the virtual space of the Internet, and come to the public
spaces and squares in Erzurum, Erzincan, Igdır, Van and Kars, and
gather signatures there. Then, you will perhaps increase the number
above 13.500. You are saying that history was concealed from you;
the genie is out of the bottle in the EU process. Mr. Aktar used the
phrase blossoming. OK, but where do you think you get the authority
to make statements about 1915. You are not a historian, you are not
a jurist. You are saying that you don't use the term genocide. But,
you are using the terminology used by Armenia when you say Great
Catastrophe. It fits the theses of Armenia perfectly in terms of
historical and political goals. It is not credible to defend this as
a voice of conscience. Mr.
CalıÅ~_lar is even saying that genocide is not such a terrible word
to use. Genocide is in fact the most degrading of crimes against
humanity. And you're being a spokesperson for those who accuse the
Turkish nation of genocide.
CalıÅ~_lar: I'm saying no such thing (ne alakası var). This was a
CUP decision, a decision by CUP clique. This is not a crime that can
be attributed to a nation. This is not a national crime. Why should
it implicate my whole nation (niye butun milletimi baglasın)?
BölukbaÅ~_& #xC4;±: President Gul came out and said that this would be a
contribution to a lively debate environment. PM said he is against
it. I guess AKP is playing good cop bad cop. I want to focus on the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry has given many martyrs,
many who lost their lives while serving the country overseas. The
Ministry is second only to the Armed Forces. And Minister Babacan
is at the head of such a Ministry. The spokesperson of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs supported the statement yesterday saying it was
a democratic expression. It is impossible to understand this attitude.
CalıÅ~_lar: The Ministry is doing what it should do. The statement
is not political. It does not address the Ministry.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Let me tell you what the Ministry should do. I invite
Foreign Affairs Minister Babacan to support the campaign,. Babacan
should sign the statement as well. It would be fitting for him to
sit among you [Aktar, CalıÅ~_lar, Ä°skit] (aranıza yakıÅ~_ır).
CalÄ& #xB1;Å~_lar: We will be glad if he signs the statement.
Birand: Let's take a break. We'll be back.
Birand: I have a question to Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı because I believe he
was there during this incident. In the Foreign Relations Committee of
the Parliament, CHP Izmir MP Canan Aritman said that the intellectuals
who signed the statement were on bribe. She also claimed that President
Gul was Armenian on his mother's side. Were you in the Commission? What
do you say to Ms. Arıtman's response to the President?
BölukbaÅ~_ı : Yes, I was there... But none of the statements about
Mr. President's family were made in the Commission. Such statements
are disgraceful, ugly and very wrong.
Elekdag: I agree. I denounce her remarks and I reject them. One should
not say these words against the President. I also apologize to our
Armenian citizens...
CalıÅ~_lar: Arıtman's remarks also show that being Armenian is used
as a derogatory term [in our country]. It is used to put down people
(aÅ~_agılayıc&#x C4;±; hakaret eden). Her bringing up the ethnicity of
the President's mother also shows her racist attitude...
Elekdag: We're discussing these things in our society. I'm opposing
the views expressed by an MP from my own party. Can you discuss these
things in Armenia, France or USA? Look, we are discussing these issues
freely. My friend mentioned a statement during my time as US Ambassador
that 69 scientists signed. You know what happened? These persons were
threatened one by one, their families were intimidated. Their houses
were bombed.
CalıÅ~_lar: Do you think it is easy to discuss these issues in
Turkey? Many people are threatened. Hrant Dink was killed. You give
the impression that these things are discussed in Turkey in a totally
democratic fashion.
Elekdag: But we can discuss freely. I'm listening to you respectfully.
CalıÅ~_lar: Article 301 is still a big problem. Just the other day,
Minister of Justice released the figures: there were 348 applications
from prosecutors to open lawsuits for Article 301 violations during
the last 6 months alone; the Minister was saying that it was a good
expression of democratic governance that he only allowed 48 lawsuits
to go through with further prosecution. Please be reasonable when
you compare us to USA. Don't ignore the reality.
Azer: No, we are not saying that there are no difficulties in
Turkey. But, at least we can openly discuss these issues. For example,
in Switzerland I can't openly declare my opinions.
CalıÅ~_lar: It is not possible to do it freely here either. Hrant
Dink was condemned for saying genocide. I can bring you the cases of
50 lawsuits; people receive punishments for using the word genocide.
Elekdag: You always give the example of Dink being killed to point
out that we are not able to discuss. Let's not disturb his soul
[by bringing his name to the debate all the time].
Aktar: But you don't even tolerate an apology statement, not even
such a compassionate campaign. Signatories are giving expression
to their conscience. They are speaking most sincerely ("from their
lungs," cigerlerinden). But you are saying how dare them (ne hakla
diyorsunuz). There was no concept of genocide in 1915. We used Metz
Yeghern, i.e. the expression Armenians used at the time. You are
claiming that it is synonymous with genocide, i.e. a term that was
coined in 1948. You are bringing this up, you are the one who is
making demagogy. You are taking a later term and equating it to an
earlier term which we used.
Ä°skit: We should clarify an issue about genocide that
Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı brought up. He was angrily asking us how we can
attribute this crime to the nation. According to 1948 Convention,
only persons can commit genocide. Indeed, just yesterday a Colonel
was sentenced for his role in Rwanda genocide. It is not possible at
all to condemn nations and societies because of the crime of genocide.
Elekdag: But there is a big flaw in your argument. True, Article
4 of 1948 Genocide Convention reads as you suggested right
now. But there has been a change in the interpretation of 1948
Convention. International Court of Justice (ICJ) has given a verdict on
27 February 2007 in the case of Bosnia vs. Serbia; and according this
verdict ICJ has stated that states are also responsible if they have
not taken necessary precautions to prevent the genocide. The Court has
set out certain important criteria to make such a determination. In
other words, states are also responsible if they are not preventing
genocide.
Ä°skit: Yes, this is true. The state can be held responsible for
genocide. But the nation cannot be held responsible. This is an
important [distinction]. CUP, the state or individuals can be held
responsible, but a nation cannot be held responsible.
BölukbaÅ~_Ä 1;: It is regrettable that the persons who have signed
the document don't realize what they've formulated. There is no
legal basis to this. The state is the target of such international
court cases as Mr. Elekdag mentioned. The case Bosnia vs. Serbia
is the latest example of this. Moreover, such court cases are not
only about the determination of crime; they also aim to determine
compensation claims against states. In this apology campaign, you make
a determination about the events of 1915, you are also determining
that there is a crime that needs an apology, and also that there are
perpetrators. You are apologizing on your part. It is another matter
who you represent but you are contributing to putting the Turkish
nation on trial for the greatest crime against humanity; you cannot
blacken Turkish nation and history, and put our ancestors on trial.
CalıÅ~_lar: There is no sense to what you're saying. The three
leaders of CUP ordered the deportation, what does this have to do
with the nation?
Aktar: It is well-known that many have hid their Armenian neighbors.
Birand: What is this we hear about the [apology] site being blocked?
Aktar: The Internet site is under constant attack for the
last 3 days. There is no tolerance despite the statements of
Mr. President. Computers which are so powerful that they can only be
located at a few locations are sending over a million access requests
per second and blocking the site. I cannot say where these attacks
originate from because I'm not sure. Despite the claims, there is no
tolerance for this. It seems that it is forbidden to apologize.
...
Birand: Can such campaigns make a positive contribution to a
solution? This is a very complex problem that involves Armenia, the
Diaspora, and US Congress. Public opinion is now taking this step
[with the apology statement]. Don't you think this will be helpful?
Elekdag: This campaign cannot serve a useful purpose. There are secret
negotiations going on between Turkey and Armenia. The proposal about a
historians' commission is part of these negotiations. It is impossible
to move forward without such a commission. The questions revolve
around the conditions of this commission. Armenians do not want such
a commission under no conditions. They are thinking that they have
the upper hand both on moral and political grounds. Their way is to
use US and EU and world parliaments to exert pressure on Turkey.
CalıÅ~_lar: Negotiations between governments are going on based some
calculations that we don't know anything about. I'm not in a position
to follow those details. My concern is to have a stance as a human
being. There may be persons on the Armenian side interested in such
a stance.
Ä°skit: We need to distinguish between the state and civil society. The
state can evaluate what is in its interests. It is up to my colleagues
among the government negotiators to make those evaluations. Mr. Elekdag
thinks that this campaign will have a negative effect. If you ask me,
we don't know that. The campaign may make positive contributions. Let
me give a concrete example. There was a conference about Armenians
two years ago at Bilgi University. A scandal broke out.
Elekdag: It was organized behind closed doors. No, there wasn't a
scandal. We allowed it. It was good that it was held.
Ä°skit: It didn't have a negative effect. These things are related
to one another.
Elekdag: This is a different issue. Right now, there are negotiations
going on. When there are such voices in Turkey, this is something
that makes Armenia's position stronger. This is clear.
Ä°skit: I don't think this is the case.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: This is, of course, something that will make Armenia's
position stronger. It is not possible to think otherwise. The basis
of Armenia's strategy is to use third country parliaments' genocide
recognition to create a suitable foundation; to create legal processes
for individual compensation claims. Let me read what Foreign Affairs
Minister of Armenia says: similar to the Holocaust, they aim that
Turkey will recognize genocide and apologize, then compensation will
follow. There is no one in Turkey who is naïve enough not to see
that this is the aim. AKP government is getting ready to open the
border based solely on the agreement to establish a common historians'
commission. They are going to do this even if Armenia continues not
to recognize the common border, or remove her territorial claims from
their Constitution and Declaration of Independence; even if Armenia
continues to regard Mount Agrı [Ararat] as a national symbol. They are
also getting ready to establish diplomatic relations by accrediting
the Embassy in Tbilisi. According to my information, the point of
contention in historians' commission is this: Armenians are going to
use the argument that this is a historical fact beyond dispute and
that it has even supporters in Turkey. They don't want a separate
historians' commission; they prefer a supra-commission, and several
sub-commissions about tourism, trade, transportation. According to
this, the historians' commission will be one among as many as 20-25
such sub-commissions. They think it is in any case useless because
this is an established historical fact. This movement, whatever they
are calling it, a movement of intellectuals based on conscience or
some such thing, cannot make a positive contribution to this process.
Ä°skit The issue of Armenian genocide is, in fact, a political issue -
i.e. an issue to go on to the stage in world public opinion. Turkey
has a thesis; Armenians put forward another thesis. We have followed
one path until now. And this path does not seem to work. We can look
at this way: will such an apology statement soften or harden the world
public opinion? One might also make such an evaluation: such apology
statements may soften the public opinion; they might serve to give
an image of more plural and free society, in this way they might make
a positive contribution to the state's interests. If Turkey respects
minority rights, not only the rights of Armenians but all minorities,
no one can condemn such a country [in world public opinion].
Aktar: There are in fact several positive responses along these
lines. This campaign does not address itself to the Armenian government
or Turkish government. The positive responses from individual
Armenians in Turkey, in the Diaspora or in Armenia are positive,
but not for the reasons you might imagine. They are not saying 'oh,
how happy we are, they have recognized the genocide'. They are giving
a positive response with tears in their eyes because they are seeing a
compassionate response after 90 years. These responses are not because
of bi-lateral negotiations or what they might lead to. This is the crux
of the matter. And speaking of national interest, if we are going to
speak reason and rationality, the truth of the matter is Deportation is
one of the biggest calamities that have ever happened in Anatolia. It
is a totally irrational decision. Anatolian economy collapsed because
of this decision. The economy of Eastern Anatolia totally collapsed.
And from that time until today, the economy has not been able to revive
itself. At the roots of what we call Kurdish rebellion, there is also
the destruction of Armenians. If we are talking interests and reason,
this decision was not rational (akılsa, akılcı degildir). Ottoman
state had lost control to such an extent that it wasn't able to follow
its interests. Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı said that I wasn't a historian and
jurist, I'm saying if you're talking about reason, this business
is not even rational. And, as a matter of fact, we are not talking
about reason, we are talking from the heart and "lungs" (kaldi ki
biz akıldan degil, kalpten cigerden bahsediyoruz).
Azer: I don't think this statement will soften anything. Armenian
goals do not have a one, two or ten year perspective. Their goals
are long-term. The goals of genocide recognition by parliaments and
the creation of an environment where there can be no talk of claiming
there was no genocide, like Switzerland. We'll see what will happen
in France. What is worrying for me is this: I wasn't able to prevent
this abroad and now it is inside my borders. This is making my hand
weaker in negotiations.
CalıÅ~_lar: What this means is this: you are not successful
in Armenian policy. These are the calculations that the states
can make. This does not concern me as a citizen. I'm expressing
myself as a citizen. As a citizen, I'm against several policies of
the state. I'm against coup d'etats, against Article 301, against
how Armenians are treated. I'm also against the policies of other
states. I'm against US invasion of Iraq. There is no such thing as
the state equals the citizen. So what if secret negotiations are
being conducted with Armenia? There is no such thing that dictates
citizens are going to stand obediently behind the state (vatandaÅ~_
devletin arkasında hazırolda duracak).
Elekdag: I believe that CalıÅ~_lar is sincere. He says that
this is a personal stance based on his conscience. I respect his
position. However, dear friends, and I am addressing myself to all of
you sitting on the opposite end of the table, we should think about
how this is going to be perceived around the world... They are going
to perceive it such that a group of people in Turkey are supporting
Armenian genocide claims. You are going to see that I'm right when
you read world press.
CalıÅ~_lar: The world can also think that there are righteous Turks
(vicdanî Turkler).
Aktar: There are already reactions in the world press but not in the
way you imagine.
Azer: Check out the website of Asbarez Newspaper, and you'll see what
I mean.
Aktar: I'm talking about NY Times, Washington Post, Liberation, Le
Monde, Figaro, The Guardian and Financial Times. I don't know the
newspaper you mention. I'm talking about world press... And we forgot
to mention the German press.
Elekdag: We asked a moment ago how we are going to solve this
problem. There is a political dimension to this business. This is a
historical and legal issue. At the end of the day, the issue will come
down to the genocide term. And the only way to approach genocide is
a legal approach. The first thing to do is to establish a historians'
commission; and then to evaluate the historical discoveries.
Producer Akar: I believe Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı is going to have some
comments about our discussion. After his comments, can he also offer
us his thoughts about Defense Minister Gönul's statements last
month? Minister Gönul had asked in a commemoration event in Brussels
[November 10, 2008]: "Could Turkey have been the same nation-state
it is today had the Greek community still lived in Aegean or had
Armenians lived in many parts of the country?" Mr. Aktar also stressed
that it was against Turkey's national interests that almost 3 million
Greeks and Armenians were removed from Anatolia. Do you agree with
Mr. Gönul's assessment?
BölukbaÅ~_ı ;: Before coming to Mr. Gönul's statements, let me make
my last comments. They are saying the apology statement pertains to
civil society, not to the political sphere. But, in fact, the issue
at hand is political, historical and legal both in its nature and in
its consequences. The important thing is even Sarkisyan would sign
this statement because the apology statement serves the interests of
Armenia. I would not automatically claim that this is the intention
of individuals preparing the statement. But, the consequence of
their statement serves this purpose. The signatories may have eased
their conscience. My concern is that while trying to create empathy,
they may have made a statement that will invite tensions and activate
a clash dynamics. One cannot rationally defend this statement in a
context where all the clash dynamics in Turkish society are active.
Birand: I think Mr. Aktar says that this is not their problem. They
are just giving expression to their opinions.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Of course, they may think like that. I am just pointing
out that this will increase the tensions in society. I don't expect
that everyone will think responsibly.
CalıÅ~_lar: Why would it increase tensions? You can just say that
you don't agree. You express your opinion, and you can allow us to
express ours. Why should we get tense [as a society]?
Aktar: There is no reason that we should get tense as a society
because of this (gerilmeyelim). As a party, for example, you can
say to the MHP organization that the signatories are just expressing
their opinions. That would be good.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Anyway. And don't think that I'm being disrespectful,
but I have to say this: I don't think there is any importance to this
initiative other than it being an expression of the mentality that it
represents (temsil ettigi zihniyet dıÅ~_ında bir önemi yoktur). I
would not say it would serve any purpose. You're showing empathy
only to the Armenians. You neglect the invasion of Azerbaijan, the
brutality of Armenia. You neglect the brutality of Armenians during
the same period in Anatolia. I won't mention the martyrs of Foreign
Affairs because I see that even some of my colleagues seem to have
forgotten them. Thank you very much.
Producer Akar: I believe Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı did not want to enter
into a polemic about Mr. Gönul's statement last month. I want to
ask you too Mr. Elekdag: what are your comments to Defense Minister
Gönul's statements?
Elekdag: I find his remarks very unfortunate. His remarks make
reference to some unfortunate events in our recent history. I was very
uncomfortable with his statement. Population exchange is naturally
a mutual agreement. I cannot accept his statement. His statement is
a gaffe for a politician to make.
Aktar: It is a fact that the common denominator of Turkish nationhood
is Islam. Non-Muslims naturally and historically fall outside this
definition. This is not something one can question, it is a fact
that each of us knows and feels. These are the facts of Turkish
nation-building process.
CalıÅ~_lar: We have the example of 6-7 September events.
Aktar: Yes, and these events are the last stages of this process.
Ä°skit: This country has not been able to tolerate minorities
(hazmedememiÅ~_tir). We couldn't take care of the minorities when
laying the foundations of the nation-building. They were just included
in the constitution. That's all.
Azer: I cannot agree to Mr. Aktar's definition of Turkish nation. That
religion is the essential building block. This is not true because
Turks pre-dated Islam. And they will continue after Islam as well.
Aktar: It is not only Islam, but Sunni Islam. The understanding of
the nation even excludes the Alevis. It is not possible to dispute
this. It is a fact. Before the 1870s, out the 13 million living
Anatolia, almost half of the population did not know Turkish.
Birand: We're approaching the end of the program. Let's have the
last comments.
Elekdag: Let me repeat that genocide issue is a political, legal
and historical issue. Law will have the last word about this
issue. Genocide term is coined in 1940s by Raphael Lemkin. 1948
UN Convention has codified it, and set definite criteria for its
determination. It can be determined either by national courts
where the event took place or an international criminal court, or
the International Court of Justice. This is the only way to solve
this issue.
CalıÅ~_lar: When dear Hrant Dink was brutally murdered, the human
face of Turkey also became visible after the murder (insanî yuzu
ortaya cıktı). Not only the 150.000 people at the funeral but also
the millions watching on TV in tears, showed their reaction to the
world. This was Turkey's human face. Even though we lost Hrant, our
very important intellectual, the world witnessed the conscience of
Turks (dunya Turklerin vicdanını gördu). The latest statement is
also a small expression of conscience. We are showing the same human
face of Turkey to the world. I see this as part of the same sentiment
that was there in Hrant's funeral. I believe that the world is going
to perceive this in a similar light.
Aktar: The world is already seeing it in this fashion. We really
need to calm down [in this country]. And politicians, CHP and MHP,
have important roles to play in this process. They need to express
that this is a citizens' movement based on conscience. Politicians
owe it to our soceity to express that this initiative does not aim
to create tensions.
Ä°skit: I want to express similar thoughts. Turkey is becoming more
democratic. This statement is also meaningful in the sense that Turkey
is pluralistic, that it has freedom of expression.
BölukbaÅ~_ı ;: I believe this initiative is an unfortunate move. It
serves the goals of Armenians by blackening the history of Turkey.
Azer: We had started the second part of the program by asking where
we go from here. We will continue the negotiations. We will stress
the historians' commission. But it won't be just another commission
among numerous other commissions. We will have them recognize our
borders. We will solve these issues before establishing diplomatic
relations. Lastly, we will go to International Court of Justice and
accept their verdict about the genocide issue. There is no risk in
this. English and Russian archives are open. French archives between
1914-18 are closed. I believe that the evidence supports us and that's
why they are not opening it. Armenians will also open their archives...
Birand: This was a rare 32nd Day Program. Everyone expressed their
opinions very respectfully. Perhaps because we had many diplomats in
our show tonight... Let's end our program on this note.
--Boundary_(ID_rbQ2Z+A9D2PHKB92Wi7f7w)--
Keghart.com
http://www.keghart.co m/op175.htm
Dec 26 2008
While every effort is made to accurately reproduce the statements of
participants and give the exact back and forth exchange during the
debate, some omissions are made and the statements that the same
person uttered at slightly different points of the conversation
are occasionally combined for brevity. Any comments and corrections
regarding the translation and/or the transcript are welcome. Mete Pamir
Participants:
For: Dr. Cengiz Aktar; Ret. Ambassador Temel Ä°skit and Journalist
Oral CalıÅ~_lar
Against: Ret. Ambassador Å~^ukru Elekdag MP CHP, Ret. Ambassador
Deniz BölukbaÅ~_ı MP MHP, and Ret. Ambassador Candan Azer
Birand: Welcome. Tonight, we're going to discuss a very important issue
that is older than the Republic, a discussion that is condemned to
irresolution for 93 years. A group of our intellectuals have started a
campaign regarding what Ottoman Armenians went through in 1915. We are
going to talk about their apology statement in which they apologize to
our Armenian brothers and sisters. At the root of the issue lies what
happened to the Armenians in 1915: is this a catastrophe, genocide
or deportation? Should we apologize? To whom and for what should
one apologize? We have representatives in our studio who defend two
opposing viewpoints: those who say yes, one should apologize and those
who say no, there is no need for it. I want to begin by asking Cengiz
Aktar first: why are we supposed to apologize, to whom and for what?
Aktar: The apology is already made. 230 intellectuals and
opinion-makers started this campaign and 13.500 citizens of Turkey have
already apologized in two-three days. We apologized for not being able
to talk about this for many years, because it was a monologue for so
long, because we looked at this matter from only one perspective. We
are also apologizing for not being able to share the pain of our
Armenian brothers and sisters to a sufficient extent. This is a very
gentle, altruistic and compassionate message (muÅ~_fik, digerkâm,
and duygudaÅ~_). We don't address ourselves to anyone [to any official
instance], we are addressing the apology to ourselves.
Birand: Yes, a lot of people are asking: are they saying that we have
committed genocide and apologizing for it? Oral CalıÅ~_lar you are
one of those who signed.
CalıÅ~_lar: Genocide term is not used in the statement. Among
the signatories there are also persons who don't think this was
genocide. The apology is about a great catastrophe and pain; it is
directed to those who are not with us any more, to those who cannot
live in Turkey. We apologize for the pain caused to hundreds of
thousands of Armenians, to their children and grandchildren. We are
not saying everyone should share the pain, it is not obligatory: those
who want to share do apologize, those who don't want to don't. The
apology is because this issue could not be discussed for so long. We
lost Hrant Dink for this reason. He was condemned because he said in
the end that there was genocide. He was declared an enemy by certain
quarters in front of the public opinion. And we lost him. It is not
unproblematic in Turkey to say that this was genocide. There are people
who cannot express their opinions and those who, like Dink, expressed
themselves recently and those who expressed themselves also in 1915.
Birand: Let me read the statement for our viewers: "My conscience
does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the
Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in
1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I empathize with the
feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers and sisters. I apologize
to them." The important term here is Great Catastrophe. Armenians
say that Great Catastrophe is genocide.
Ä°skit: I signed the statement hoping that it was a non-political
statement. I signed this as a matter of personal conscience, aa
a matter of freedom of expression and a debt that I felt I owed. I
particularly wanted to show my reaction to the denial. This is a civil
society movement; it is different than the political sphere. This
is not an issue about whether this was a genocide or not... This
statement does not represent a compromise. In that case it would have
been political.
Elekdag: Firstly, they are referring to Great Catastrophe; this is
Metz Yeghern in Armenian. This word is a synonym for genocide. The
difference between the two words is as little as the difference
between mass slaughter and mass killing (kitle katliamı" and kitlesel
öldurme). There is no difference between them. When Metz Yeghern
is used, Armenians understand genocide. When some official person
goes to Armenia, visits the Monument and wishes to condemn genocide
as well as not to offend the Turkish Republic they use Metz Yeghern;
and Armenians accept this. This statement is tantamount to supporting
the genocide campaign of the Armenian Diaspora. It would have been
alright to use terms like great tragedy or pain. The concept of
Great Catastrophe is an established term; it has a loaded meaning
which is very difficult to change. Therefore, it naturally causes
reactions. Secondly, it is important that the statement uses the
word "denial." The word "denial" is commonly used by the Armenian
Diaspora and in Armenia against those who say that there was no
genocide. "Denying" is not a normal word; when "denialist" is used,
those with opposing viewpoints are meant. This is not an innocent
word either. It is part of the jargon used by Armenians...
Aktar: Metz Yeghern is a word from the time of 1915. The term
genocide and its basis in international law is from 1948. From 1915
until 1948, the Armenian people who were subjected to this [calamity]
were of course going to give a name to it. We used the name that they
themselves used [for a long time]. This is not a discussion about
genocide [terminology]. Temel Ä°skit is spot on about this. We are not
going to discuss genocide here, are we? If you are going to boil down
our discussion tonight to whether there was genocide or not, let's
not talk further; let's just end the discussion right here and go home.
Azer: Of course, it is fortunate that the word genocide is not used in
the apology statement. However, as Mr. Elekdag mentioned, even today in
Armenian there is not such a word as genocide. They use Metz Yeghern
instead. For example, when previous Pope went to Armenia and visited
the Genocide Monument, he used the word Metz Yeghern while signing the
memorial book. We were happy about this. Armenians were even happier.
Producer Akar: What does the US President use in April 24? Does he
not use Great Catastrophe?
Elekdag: No, he mentions a tragedy. It is not like Great Catastrophe
has never been used in USA. In fact, it was used. But at that time,
these things were not established to such an extent. There might
have been points of time in the past that Turkey neglected to pay
attention. Today, Metz Yeghern is a totally established term. And it
is synonymous with genocide. It is not possible to understand this
statement any differently. If they don't want this statement to be
interpreted in this way, I think it will be a good idea for them to
prepare an additional statement and declare that they did not intent
to say that it was genocide. The intended meaning in this version is
genocide; it is impossible to understand it otherwise.
CalıÅ~_lar: We're not in a position to give an account of anything
to state officials here (devlet buyuklerine hesap vermek). We're
not on trial here. I can state whatever I like as a citizen. It is
up me alone to decide my intended meaning. Mr. Elekdag can interpret
it his way. This is my right as a citizen. It is important to stress
this because people have been put on trial for these things in this
country. Turkey has done shameful things about these issues (ayıplı
ulkedi). Hrant Dink was put on trial and condemned for violating
Article 301, and look what happened to him in the end. This is very
recent history, not old history.
Elekdag: We're not talking about Hrant Dink. Dink was not only your
friend. He was our friend as well.
Birand: Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı, [leader of your party, MHP] Devlet
Bahceli said that he is ashamed of the individuals who signed the
statement. Are you also ashamed of them?
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Yes, I too am ashamed of them. I should start by
giving an exposition and concrete examples about the wider meaning,
goals and consequences of this initiative. This is not just a one time
or sporadic initiative. It is a new stage in a process that has been
developing for the last two-three years. In tandem with the "virtual"
membership accession to EU, a class of persons who are on staff to
make statements has emerged in Turkey (kadrolu bildiriciler). We are
seeing the same persons again and again in such initiatives regarding
Turkish history, national identity and state structures. They are on
commission to make these things. They are volunteering for these. For
these people, it has been a status symbol to blacken our history --
i.e. a symbol of proving how Western and modern they are. It has
been an academic and political career path to run after the lie of
Armenian genocide. At one time, Armenia officially demanded that
Article 301 was removed so that there could be a lobby to discuss
genocide within Turkey. This was set as a pre-condition for starting
negotiations. Armenia officially forwarded this request to Turkish
Minister of Foreign Affairs. Look, secret negotiations have been going
on with Armenia in Bern for the last two years. At this stage, Armenia
is not putting forward genocide recognition as a pre-condition; they
are calculating that recognition will come in any case during the EU
process; for this reason they are thinking that it is enough to take
steps so that Turkish society itself can face its past. Therefore, to
say that genocide is not used in this statement in no way changes the
meaning and goals of this statement. I want to ask Ambassador Ä°skit:
among the Armenian brothers to whom he apologized, are members of
ASALA included? And also how did he manage to repress his opinions
during all his 40 years in [diplomatic] service?
Ä°skit: I don't think I'm obliged to give an account about my feelings
to my colleague Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı. But, let me explain to you why I
oppose the denial. It is not like I repressed this for years. In my
diplomatic career I gradually realized that there was a big denial and
concealment. I realized that some pages of our history were missing. It
was as if some events had never happened. I did not read anything about
these things in any book or newspaper until the 1980s. Our thinking in
Foreign Affairs developed through stages over several years. It didn't
happen all of a sudden: First, there was a big silence about these
things in the Ministry. I strongly reacted against this. The total
silence about the events evolved into [the claim of] mutual killings
(mukatele) by the slow opening of new pages. My conscience is clear
[about my years in diplomatic service]. The ASALA question: this is an
issue that is continuously brought forward in other contexts as well,
but we shouldn't confuse these two issues. ASALA is a great tragedy
for me personally and for my professional community; but this is not
a matter of two accounts, one offsetting the other (mahsup meselesi
degil). It is not a matter of one tragedy here, another there balancing
each other; it is not a matter of how many people were killed on
our side, and how many on their side. I of course condemn terrorism;
I of course wish that the whole world apologizes for ASALA killings;
but here I'm apologizing for the Great Catastrophe in 1915.
Aktar: There is nothing to respond to in Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı's
comments. You are asking me to respond to his comments about EU? You,
Mehmet Ali Birand, would be much more qualified than me to speak
about EU. But there is a real sociological basis to the observation
that these things are related to the EU process. This is important and
pertains to our recent history. Turkey is in a process of change since
the 1980s, since late Ozal. Turkey was a closed and inward-looking
country until 1983. Especially after 1999, Turkey opened to the world,
the country literally blossomed (kabak cicegi gibi acıldı). And EU
process greatly contributed to this. The djinns are out of the bottle,
and it is not possible to put these back in. People started putting
taboos into question. This is not only the case for the Armenian
issue. It is also true for the rights of women, homosexuals, Alevis. It
is also about honour killings; about Kurdish issue and democratization.
For this reason, we need to look forward, not back. I did not prepare
this statement. 250 people prepared it. This is not a campaign
or petition; it is a statement. Apology statement is the voice of
conscience, because they were not able to speak about this for 90
years. How else could 13.500 Turkish persons (Turk insanı) come out
and apologize in just three days? Everyone should ask this important
question: these people said that they behaved shamefully. These
are important concepts in Anatolia: shame/disgrace (ayıp) and sin
(gunah). Intellectuals do not know [the weight of these concepts]
to a sufficient degree. Anatolians know it. These people came out
into the open.
Elekdag: 30.000 other people came out and said that there is no
such thing. It was in fact possible to discuss a great many of these
issues previously.
Aktar: Let it be so [that 30.000 signed a counter-statement]. What is
important is for these things to be discussed. No, it wasn't possible
to discuss these before.
Azer: Mr. Ä°skit told us that our history was "concealed" from us
(saklandı). I don't think concealed is the right word. Of course, the
events of 1915 were not taught to us neither in primary school nor at
the universities. It is more correct to say that we did not know our
history. They did not teach our history because it was something we
left behind and moved beyond. The last years of Ottoman were not told
because we were going forward in the years of Republic. We started
learning and teaching our history when our classmates started getting
killed. Then, we scientifically proved that all the allegations were
false one by one: such as the telegram of Talat Pasha, the quote that
is attributed to Hitler, the actual numbers that were deported or
were subject to genocide as Armenians say. When the terror stopped,
we unfortunately stopped showing attention to our history once
again. For example, when Mr. Elekdag was Washington ambassador in
1985, 68 scientists signed a statement and said that 1915 could not be
characterized as genocide. But we didn't follow up. We don't pursue
the matter consistently, our interest flares up when there is a vote
in Congress, and after the vote we lose interest. We should know our
history. Our history is no longer hidden; it is out in the open.
CalıÅ~_lar: Let me give you an example. At a symposium in Kayseri
University, an Associate Professor said that Mimar Sinan [the great
16th-century Ottoman architect] was [ethnically] Turkish. I asked
the symposium what is the point of claiming this, everyone knows
that he was Armenian; he came from the Armenian village Agırnas
[in Kayseri]. There is no need to distort history; this may also show
the superiority of Ottomans in incorporating minorities to culture of
the Empire. The professor approached me during the break and told me
that he had actually written what I told to the symposium, but that
they had removed those pages [from his article]. We still think that
we can change history just by tearing some pages. You can't change
history like this. The world understands the truth in the end. The
real question is how we are going to understand and see ourselves. We
see the lived pain when we travel in Anatolia. I personally know tens
of people whose paternal or maternal grandmothers are Armenian. Where
did these people come from, did they come from outer space? Obviously,
these have stayed there as a result of a great pain and tragedy. The
female children who were left behind became grandmothers to a great
many of us. We started learning these recently, after terrorism started
and our diplomats got killed. And I also have classmates among those
who were killed. This is something that should be condemned. But
these are two different matters.
Azer: Yes, many people have died at that time. A minute ago I mentioned
68 scientists' statement. They have also established that. Many people
have died due climate conditions and malnutrition.
CalıÅ~_lar No, dear sir, there is a crime perpetrated by the state
here (devlet sucu). There was first a CUP decree sent to all provinces,
these instructions said to deport the people and take them to such and
such places. Then, there was a law. A few individuals in CUP decided
this, and then a law was passed in the Ottoman Parliament. There was
a state decision. Let's agree on this.
Azer: Yes, there was a state decision for the deportation.
Elekdag: We're not going to enter into those debates here, are we? You
are only telling part of what happened. There is a deportation
decision, of course. But this is done in legitimate self-defense
(meÅ~_ru mudafaa) during conditions of war. Russian army was
advancing. Armenians took up arms and joined that army. There were
chetes behind the front attacking the convoys. The greatest historians
in the world, like Bernard Lewis, Avigdor Levy, and Stanford Shaw
say that this was in self-defense. There was a state decision for
deportation, but there were also state decrees to act honestly and
protect the convoys. The state has shown "due diligence," but the
state could unfortunately not succeed in preventing all actions to
the contrary.
Aktar: OK, would you agree that we apologize just for this, just for
what you pointed out now [that the state could not prevent killings
despite showing due diligence]?
Elekdag: That's OK. But in that case, one should apologize from
both sides.
Aktar: In that case, excuse me, one should invoke this criterion:
Turks and Kurds are still living in the geographic area they used to
live, but Armenians are not there any more. There is an abnormality
here. This is not normal.
Elekdag: This is not a legitimate argument. Let me ask you: do you
know how many Turks and Muslims there were in Armenia and Yerevan in
the 1990s? Are there any left? These events are related to each other.
Aktar: Two wrongs do not cancel each other, and make it right. There
may have been wrongs done over there; and of course there is a
relation between the two. But this issue is our problem. I'm not
talking about Azerbaijan or about Armenia. I'm talking about our own
problem, about Ottoman Armenians. We're the grandchildren of Ottomans,
and I'm apologizing for the things that happened to them on the roads
during the deportation to Der Zor. Is it so bad to apologize for this?
Elekdag: In that case, one should look into the context of the
deportation decision. Between the end of 1914 and May 1915, Armenian
chetes killed 122.000 Turks. They annihilated these people. Then there
was a rebellion in Van. In one night, Armenians annihilated 35.000
Turks. Russian Czar sent a congratulations telegram to the head of
the Armenian resistance group (komita) for handing the place to the
Russian army. Did these things not happen?
Producer Akar: Now that we're talking about history, why were people
deported from Kocaeli, Kutahya and Usak. As far I know, there was
no chete activity in those places. Were these places in the battle
front too?
Elekdag: Armed resistance movements (komitacılar) had started
preparations there as well. We shouldn't forget that there were
Armenian craftsmen in towns; hundreds of Armenian doctors were
ranked officers in Ottoman army. Many villages were exempt from the
deportations. In the place of my ancestors, Kastamonu, the Armenian
population was untouched because they were not involved in this
business. In Istanbul, Armenians continued their duties as civil
servants.
Producer Akar: Please allow me to make a modest reminder about
history, Mr. Elekdag. In a report that CHP's 9th division, what is
known as the Bureau on Minorities, prepared in 1944, there is mention
of discomfort due to too much concentration of Armenian population in
Kastamonu. There are recommendations for sending them to Istanbul. In
other words, the same issue continued.
Elekdag: Please, don't interpret this in this way. If there is
discomfort, the intention of the recommendation there is to protect
those people.
Aktar: Especially women [were in the resistance in 1915, weren't
they?]. There is not one Armenian left in Anatolia. OK, let's accept
that people left. Do you think we could have protected churches and
[heritage] buildings better?
Elekdag: Now, who is able to protect such sites better in other places
(nerde korunuyor ki)? There are many Turkish buildings in Armenia
and Yerevan, are they being protected?
Aktar: I see, you're saying that others are not protecting such
sites in their countries, we shouldn't protect ours either. Right,
right! My god! (Hey Allahım).
Elekdag: No, I'm not saying that.
Azer: If I may, I want to ask something to Mr. Aktar. Did you
visit Ani?
Aktar: I visited in 1978.
Azer: I visited in 1992, also later, as part of my duties. There
are ruins in Ani. Parts of the ruins are over on the other side
of the river Arpacay, inside the borders of Armenia. They have not
protected them.
Aktar: They have a stone quarry.
Azer: We are protecting better. There are even fewer ruins inside
Armenian borders.
Aktar, CalıÅ~_lar and Iskit: But we are calling it Anı instead of
Ani, we are changing the name, we're not calling it Armenian.
Azer: No, I'm calling it Ani.
Ä°skit: We are not protecting it as an Armenian site. When I was
talking about denial earlier, I was also talking about the denial
today. I'm against using Anı instead of Ani. I'm against the fact
that the word Armenian today is used almost as an insult word. All
of these are part of the same issue.
Elekdag: In this statement you're referring to denialism. This is a
concept; and genocide concept is behind this denialism concept. Let's
talk about how we are going to solve this problem. Diaspora is
calling this genocide. Turkey is not calling it a genocide. Genocide
belief is intrinsic to the identity of Diaspora Armenians. It is
impossible to change this belief. In Turkey, there is a great mass
of people who oppose this. And they are not going to change their
beliefs either. They see this as an international plot against
them. Is this mutual animosity going to continue for generations
with no solution in sight? You cannot solve the issue like this. The
only solution is to conduct scientific research by staying away from
emotions and away from hatred. Turks and Armenians should establish an
international scientific commission comprising jurists and historians;
an internationally-recognized figure whom both sides will accept can
head this commission. I made this proposal years ago in diplomatic
service. Nobody listened inside the bureaucracy. Then, when I became
MP, I took the initiative ... and on 8 March 2005 Baykal [the leader
of CHP] and PM made the joint proposal regarding the commission of
Turkish and Armenian historians. PM declared that he will be ready
to accept the results of commission's discoveries whether they are
for us or against us. This is a great risk that we were not able to
take until now. Naturally, this proposal is about opening the archives
mutually. We have opened all the historical archives. Armenia is not
opening all the archives. We expect them to open. This is the way
to a solution. We would have expected our intellectuals to make a
statement supporting this proposal.
CalıÅ~_lar: The state and the politicians can make these proposals,
and we would respect such proposals. But we are citizens. We are
offering citizens' statements: we are saying that we don't want to
continue not sharing the pain. We are showing a humanistic response. As
a citizen, I don't feel myself bound by the decisions of Mr. Elekdag
or the PM.
Elekdag: But you are sharing the pain of one side.
CalıÅ~_lar: I'm sharing the pain of one side because I'm on one
side. If Armenians want to say they share the pain, it is up to
them. I'm doing my duty as a Turkish citizen. When I go to other
countries and meet with Armenians, I feel sad. I wish that these
painful events didn't take place. I put myself in their shoes,
I feel worse.
Elekdag: By doing that, you are acting against the interests of the
country. By doing what the Diaspora wants, you're acting against
Turkey's interests.
CalıÅ~_lar: You don't have the sole right to define what is and
what is not in Turkey's interests. I think an apology is in Turkey's
interests (Turkiye'Nin cıkarı da özurden geciyor). You are talking
about Turkey's political interests. I'm not bound by them. I'm a
citizen and free individual. This is my perspective.
Elekdag: Then let me ask you this. Of course, I wouldn't want to put
you on the spot.
But, are you saying that you weren't aware you are signing under a
document which says genocide?
CalıÅ~_lar: I have the right to my own opinions in this matter. When
I want to express them, I can express them anytime I want.
Elekdag: Are you not in a position to say whether there was one
[genocide] or there wasn't?
CalıÅ~_lar: I signed this statement without any preconditions about
whether there was a genocide or not. Each individual may have signed
it with different assumptions. Among the people who signed there are
those who say it was genocide and those who say it wasn't.
Elekdag: In that case, this helps the case of those who say it was
genocide. Does it not?
CalıÅ~_lar: By the way, genocide is not such a brutal word that we
should be afraid of. Genocide is just another opinion.
Azer: Don't you feel the pain of those who were massacred by the
Armenians in Eastern Anatolia during World War I? Aren't you sorry
for the children, women and old people who were killed? Why didn't
you include them in the statement? If you had done that, then perhaps
I too would have signed it. This is a matter of balance. You cannot
walk on one foot; all you can do is jump.
CalıÅ~_lar: This is not issue whereby you add one account on top of
the other. We are changing rehearsed mantras (ezber bozuyoruz). If
you repeat that nothing has happened continuously for 93 years,
then I'll say that these things have happened. We, of course, know
that history as well, people were massacred by Armenians. The people
killed are our mothers and fathers.
Birand: I want to give the word to Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı. He has been very
patient. In the second part of the program, we should talk about what
to do if we are going to break this vicious circle.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: I will briefly touch upon some of the issues your
valuable guests mentioned. I'm not sure how credible it is to have
13.500 signatures in "virtual" space. I would suggest that you
leave the virtual space of the Internet, and come to the public
spaces and squares in Erzurum, Erzincan, Igdır, Van and Kars, and
gather signatures there. Then, you will perhaps increase the number
above 13.500. You are saying that history was concealed from you;
the genie is out of the bottle in the EU process. Mr. Aktar used the
phrase blossoming. OK, but where do you think you get the authority
to make statements about 1915. You are not a historian, you are not
a jurist. You are saying that you don't use the term genocide. But,
you are using the terminology used by Armenia when you say Great
Catastrophe. It fits the theses of Armenia perfectly in terms of
historical and political goals. It is not credible to defend this as
a voice of conscience. Mr.
CalıÅ~_lar is even saying that genocide is not such a terrible word
to use. Genocide is in fact the most degrading of crimes against
humanity. And you're being a spokesperson for those who accuse the
Turkish nation of genocide.
CalıÅ~_lar: I'm saying no such thing (ne alakası var). This was a
CUP decision, a decision by CUP clique. This is not a crime that can
be attributed to a nation. This is not a national crime. Why should
it implicate my whole nation (niye butun milletimi baglasın)?
BölukbaÅ~_& #xC4;±: President Gul came out and said that this would be a
contribution to a lively debate environment. PM said he is against
it. I guess AKP is playing good cop bad cop. I want to focus on the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry has given many martyrs,
many who lost their lives while serving the country overseas. The
Ministry is second only to the Armed Forces. And Minister Babacan
is at the head of such a Ministry. The spokesperson of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs supported the statement yesterday saying it was
a democratic expression. It is impossible to understand this attitude.
CalıÅ~_lar: The Ministry is doing what it should do. The statement
is not political. It does not address the Ministry.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Let me tell you what the Ministry should do. I invite
Foreign Affairs Minister Babacan to support the campaign,. Babacan
should sign the statement as well. It would be fitting for him to
sit among you [Aktar, CalıÅ~_lar, Ä°skit] (aranıza yakıÅ~_ır).
CalÄ& #xB1;Å~_lar: We will be glad if he signs the statement.
Birand: Let's take a break. We'll be back.
Birand: I have a question to Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı because I believe he
was there during this incident. In the Foreign Relations Committee of
the Parliament, CHP Izmir MP Canan Aritman said that the intellectuals
who signed the statement were on bribe. She also claimed that President
Gul was Armenian on his mother's side. Were you in the Commission? What
do you say to Ms. Arıtman's response to the President?
BölukbaÅ~_ı : Yes, I was there... But none of the statements about
Mr. President's family were made in the Commission. Such statements
are disgraceful, ugly and very wrong.
Elekdag: I agree. I denounce her remarks and I reject them. One should
not say these words against the President. I also apologize to our
Armenian citizens...
CalıÅ~_lar: Arıtman's remarks also show that being Armenian is used
as a derogatory term [in our country]. It is used to put down people
(aÅ~_agılayıc&#x C4;±; hakaret eden). Her bringing up the ethnicity of
the President's mother also shows her racist attitude...
Elekdag: We're discussing these things in our society. I'm opposing
the views expressed by an MP from my own party. Can you discuss these
things in Armenia, France or USA? Look, we are discussing these issues
freely. My friend mentioned a statement during my time as US Ambassador
that 69 scientists signed. You know what happened? These persons were
threatened one by one, their families were intimidated. Their houses
were bombed.
CalıÅ~_lar: Do you think it is easy to discuss these issues in
Turkey? Many people are threatened. Hrant Dink was killed. You give
the impression that these things are discussed in Turkey in a totally
democratic fashion.
Elekdag: But we can discuss freely. I'm listening to you respectfully.
CalıÅ~_lar: Article 301 is still a big problem. Just the other day,
Minister of Justice released the figures: there were 348 applications
from prosecutors to open lawsuits for Article 301 violations during
the last 6 months alone; the Minister was saying that it was a good
expression of democratic governance that he only allowed 48 lawsuits
to go through with further prosecution. Please be reasonable when
you compare us to USA. Don't ignore the reality.
Azer: No, we are not saying that there are no difficulties in
Turkey. But, at least we can openly discuss these issues. For example,
in Switzerland I can't openly declare my opinions.
CalıÅ~_lar: It is not possible to do it freely here either. Hrant
Dink was condemned for saying genocide. I can bring you the cases of
50 lawsuits; people receive punishments for using the word genocide.
Elekdag: You always give the example of Dink being killed to point
out that we are not able to discuss. Let's not disturb his soul
[by bringing his name to the debate all the time].
Aktar: But you don't even tolerate an apology statement, not even
such a compassionate campaign. Signatories are giving expression
to their conscience. They are speaking most sincerely ("from their
lungs," cigerlerinden). But you are saying how dare them (ne hakla
diyorsunuz). There was no concept of genocide in 1915. We used Metz
Yeghern, i.e. the expression Armenians used at the time. You are
claiming that it is synonymous with genocide, i.e. a term that was
coined in 1948. You are bringing this up, you are the one who is
making demagogy. You are taking a later term and equating it to an
earlier term which we used.
Ä°skit: We should clarify an issue about genocide that
Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı brought up. He was angrily asking us how we can
attribute this crime to the nation. According to 1948 Convention,
only persons can commit genocide. Indeed, just yesterday a Colonel
was sentenced for his role in Rwanda genocide. It is not possible at
all to condemn nations and societies because of the crime of genocide.
Elekdag: But there is a big flaw in your argument. True, Article
4 of 1948 Genocide Convention reads as you suggested right
now. But there has been a change in the interpretation of 1948
Convention. International Court of Justice (ICJ) has given a verdict on
27 February 2007 in the case of Bosnia vs. Serbia; and according this
verdict ICJ has stated that states are also responsible if they have
not taken necessary precautions to prevent the genocide. The Court has
set out certain important criteria to make such a determination. In
other words, states are also responsible if they are not preventing
genocide.
Ä°skit: Yes, this is true. The state can be held responsible for
genocide. But the nation cannot be held responsible. This is an
important [distinction]. CUP, the state or individuals can be held
responsible, but a nation cannot be held responsible.
BölukbaÅ~_Ä 1;: It is regrettable that the persons who have signed
the document don't realize what they've formulated. There is no
legal basis to this. The state is the target of such international
court cases as Mr. Elekdag mentioned. The case Bosnia vs. Serbia
is the latest example of this. Moreover, such court cases are not
only about the determination of crime; they also aim to determine
compensation claims against states. In this apology campaign, you make
a determination about the events of 1915, you are also determining
that there is a crime that needs an apology, and also that there are
perpetrators. You are apologizing on your part. It is another matter
who you represent but you are contributing to putting the Turkish
nation on trial for the greatest crime against humanity; you cannot
blacken Turkish nation and history, and put our ancestors on trial.
CalıÅ~_lar: There is no sense to what you're saying. The three
leaders of CUP ordered the deportation, what does this have to do
with the nation?
Aktar: It is well-known that many have hid their Armenian neighbors.
Birand: What is this we hear about the [apology] site being blocked?
Aktar: The Internet site is under constant attack for the
last 3 days. There is no tolerance despite the statements of
Mr. President. Computers which are so powerful that they can only be
located at a few locations are sending over a million access requests
per second and blocking the site. I cannot say where these attacks
originate from because I'm not sure. Despite the claims, there is no
tolerance for this. It seems that it is forbidden to apologize.
...
Birand: Can such campaigns make a positive contribution to a
solution? This is a very complex problem that involves Armenia, the
Diaspora, and US Congress. Public opinion is now taking this step
[with the apology statement]. Don't you think this will be helpful?
Elekdag: This campaign cannot serve a useful purpose. There are secret
negotiations going on between Turkey and Armenia. The proposal about a
historians' commission is part of these negotiations. It is impossible
to move forward without such a commission. The questions revolve
around the conditions of this commission. Armenians do not want such
a commission under no conditions. They are thinking that they have
the upper hand both on moral and political grounds. Their way is to
use US and EU and world parliaments to exert pressure on Turkey.
CalıÅ~_lar: Negotiations between governments are going on based some
calculations that we don't know anything about. I'm not in a position
to follow those details. My concern is to have a stance as a human
being. There may be persons on the Armenian side interested in such
a stance.
Ä°skit: We need to distinguish between the state and civil society. The
state can evaluate what is in its interests. It is up to my colleagues
among the government negotiators to make those evaluations. Mr. Elekdag
thinks that this campaign will have a negative effect. If you ask me,
we don't know that. The campaign may make positive contributions. Let
me give a concrete example. There was a conference about Armenians
two years ago at Bilgi University. A scandal broke out.
Elekdag: It was organized behind closed doors. No, there wasn't a
scandal. We allowed it. It was good that it was held.
Ä°skit: It didn't have a negative effect. These things are related
to one another.
Elekdag: This is a different issue. Right now, there are negotiations
going on. When there are such voices in Turkey, this is something
that makes Armenia's position stronger. This is clear.
Ä°skit: I don't think this is the case.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: This is, of course, something that will make Armenia's
position stronger. It is not possible to think otherwise. The basis
of Armenia's strategy is to use third country parliaments' genocide
recognition to create a suitable foundation; to create legal processes
for individual compensation claims. Let me read what Foreign Affairs
Minister of Armenia says: similar to the Holocaust, they aim that
Turkey will recognize genocide and apologize, then compensation will
follow. There is no one in Turkey who is naïve enough not to see
that this is the aim. AKP government is getting ready to open the
border based solely on the agreement to establish a common historians'
commission. They are going to do this even if Armenia continues not
to recognize the common border, or remove her territorial claims from
their Constitution and Declaration of Independence; even if Armenia
continues to regard Mount Agrı [Ararat] as a national symbol. They are
also getting ready to establish diplomatic relations by accrediting
the Embassy in Tbilisi. According to my information, the point of
contention in historians' commission is this: Armenians are going to
use the argument that this is a historical fact beyond dispute and
that it has even supporters in Turkey. They don't want a separate
historians' commission; they prefer a supra-commission, and several
sub-commissions about tourism, trade, transportation. According to
this, the historians' commission will be one among as many as 20-25
such sub-commissions. They think it is in any case useless because
this is an established historical fact. This movement, whatever they
are calling it, a movement of intellectuals based on conscience or
some such thing, cannot make a positive contribution to this process.
Ä°skit The issue of Armenian genocide is, in fact, a political issue -
i.e. an issue to go on to the stage in world public opinion. Turkey
has a thesis; Armenians put forward another thesis. We have followed
one path until now. And this path does not seem to work. We can look
at this way: will such an apology statement soften or harden the world
public opinion? One might also make such an evaluation: such apology
statements may soften the public opinion; they might serve to give
an image of more plural and free society, in this way they might make
a positive contribution to the state's interests. If Turkey respects
minority rights, not only the rights of Armenians but all minorities,
no one can condemn such a country [in world public opinion].
Aktar: There are in fact several positive responses along these
lines. This campaign does not address itself to the Armenian government
or Turkish government. The positive responses from individual
Armenians in Turkey, in the Diaspora or in Armenia are positive,
but not for the reasons you might imagine. They are not saying 'oh,
how happy we are, they have recognized the genocide'. They are giving
a positive response with tears in their eyes because they are seeing a
compassionate response after 90 years. These responses are not because
of bi-lateral negotiations or what they might lead to. This is the crux
of the matter. And speaking of national interest, if we are going to
speak reason and rationality, the truth of the matter is Deportation is
one of the biggest calamities that have ever happened in Anatolia. It
is a totally irrational decision. Anatolian economy collapsed because
of this decision. The economy of Eastern Anatolia totally collapsed.
And from that time until today, the economy has not been able to revive
itself. At the roots of what we call Kurdish rebellion, there is also
the destruction of Armenians. If we are talking interests and reason,
this decision was not rational (akılsa, akılcı degildir). Ottoman
state had lost control to such an extent that it wasn't able to follow
its interests. Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı said that I wasn't a historian and
jurist, I'm saying if you're talking about reason, this business
is not even rational. And, as a matter of fact, we are not talking
about reason, we are talking from the heart and "lungs" (kaldi ki
biz akıldan degil, kalpten cigerden bahsediyoruz).
Azer: I don't think this statement will soften anything. Armenian
goals do not have a one, two or ten year perspective. Their goals
are long-term. The goals of genocide recognition by parliaments and
the creation of an environment where there can be no talk of claiming
there was no genocide, like Switzerland. We'll see what will happen
in France. What is worrying for me is this: I wasn't able to prevent
this abroad and now it is inside my borders. This is making my hand
weaker in negotiations.
CalıÅ~_lar: What this means is this: you are not successful
in Armenian policy. These are the calculations that the states
can make. This does not concern me as a citizen. I'm expressing
myself as a citizen. As a citizen, I'm against several policies of
the state. I'm against coup d'etats, against Article 301, against
how Armenians are treated. I'm also against the policies of other
states. I'm against US invasion of Iraq. There is no such thing as
the state equals the citizen. So what if secret negotiations are
being conducted with Armenia? There is no such thing that dictates
citizens are going to stand obediently behind the state (vatandaÅ~_
devletin arkasında hazırolda duracak).
Elekdag: I believe that CalıÅ~_lar is sincere. He says that
this is a personal stance based on his conscience. I respect his
position. However, dear friends, and I am addressing myself to all of
you sitting on the opposite end of the table, we should think about
how this is going to be perceived around the world... They are going
to perceive it such that a group of people in Turkey are supporting
Armenian genocide claims. You are going to see that I'm right when
you read world press.
CalıÅ~_lar: The world can also think that there are righteous Turks
(vicdanî Turkler).
Aktar: There are already reactions in the world press but not in the
way you imagine.
Azer: Check out the website of Asbarez Newspaper, and you'll see what
I mean.
Aktar: I'm talking about NY Times, Washington Post, Liberation, Le
Monde, Figaro, The Guardian and Financial Times. I don't know the
newspaper you mention. I'm talking about world press... And we forgot
to mention the German press.
Elekdag: We asked a moment ago how we are going to solve this
problem. There is a political dimension to this business. This is a
historical and legal issue. At the end of the day, the issue will come
down to the genocide term. And the only way to approach genocide is
a legal approach. The first thing to do is to establish a historians'
commission; and then to evaluate the historical discoveries.
Producer Akar: I believe Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı is going to have some
comments about our discussion. After his comments, can he also offer
us his thoughts about Defense Minister Gönul's statements last
month? Minister Gönul had asked in a commemoration event in Brussels
[November 10, 2008]: "Could Turkey have been the same nation-state
it is today had the Greek community still lived in Aegean or had
Armenians lived in many parts of the country?" Mr. Aktar also stressed
that it was against Turkey's national interests that almost 3 million
Greeks and Armenians were removed from Anatolia. Do you agree with
Mr. Gönul's assessment?
BölukbaÅ~_ı ;: Before coming to Mr. Gönul's statements, let me make
my last comments. They are saying the apology statement pertains to
civil society, not to the political sphere. But, in fact, the issue
at hand is political, historical and legal both in its nature and in
its consequences. The important thing is even Sarkisyan would sign
this statement because the apology statement serves the interests of
Armenia. I would not automatically claim that this is the intention
of individuals preparing the statement. But, the consequence of
their statement serves this purpose. The signatories may have eased
their conscience. My concern is that while trying to create empathy,
they may have made a statement that will invite tensions and activate
a clash dynamics. One cannot rationally defend this statement in a
context where all the clash dynamics in Turkish society are active.
Birand: I think Mr. Aktar says that this is not their problem. They
are just giving expression to their opinions.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Of course, they may think like that. I am just pointing
out that this will increase the tensions in society. I don't expect
that everyone will think responsibly.
CalıÅ~_lar: Why would it increase tensions? You can just say that
you don't agree. You express your opinion, and you can allow us to
express ours. Why should we get tense [as a society]?
Aktar: There is no reason that we should get tense as a society
because of this (gerilmeyelim). As a party, for example, you can
say to the MHP organization that the signatories are just expressing
their opinions. That would be good.
BölukbaÅ~_ı: Anyway. And don't think that I'm being disrespectful,
but I have to say this: I don't think there is any importance to this
initiative other than it being an expression of the mentality that it
represents (temsil ettigi zihniyet dıÅ~_ında bir önemi yoktur). I
would not say it would serve any purpose. You're showing empathy
only to the Armenians. You neglect the invasion of Azerbaijan, the
brutality of Armenia. You neglect the brutality of Armenians during
the same period in Anatolia. I won't mention the martyrs of Foreign
Affairs because I see that even some of my colleagues seem to have
forgotten them. Thank you very much.
Producer Akar: I believe Mr. BölukbaÅ~_ı did not want to enter
into a polemic about Mr. Gönul's statement last month. I want to
ask you too Mr. Elekdag: what are your comments to Defense Minister
Gönul's statements?
Elekdag: I find his remarks very unfortunate. His remarks make
reference to some unfortunate events in our recent history. I was very
uncomfortable with his statement. Population exchange is naturally
a mutual agreement. I cannot accept his statement. His statement is
a gaffe for a politician to make.
Aktar: It is a fact that the common denominator of Turkish nationhood
is Islam. Non-Muslims naturally and historically fall outside this
definition. This is not something one can question, it is a fact
that each of us knows and feels. These are the facts of Turkish
nation-building process.
CalıÅ~_lar: We have the example of 6-7 September events.
Aktar: Yes, and these events are the last stages of this process.
Ä°skit: This country has not been able to tolerate minorities
(hazmedememiÅ~_tir). We couldn't take care of the minorities when
laying the foundations of the nation-building. They were just included
in the constitution. That's all.
Azer: I cannot agree to Mr. Aktar's definition of Turkish nation. That
religion is the essential building block. This is not true because
Turks pre-dated Islam. And they will continue after Islam as well.
Aktar: It is not only Islam, but Sunni Islam. The understanding of
the nation even excludes the Alevis. It is not possible to dispute
this. It is a fact. Before the 1870s, out the 13 million living
Anatolia, almost half of the population did not know Turkish.
Birand: We're approaching the end of the program. Let's have the
last comments.
Elekdag: Let me repeat that genocide issue is a political, legal
and historical issue. Law will have the last word about this
issue. Genocide term is coined in 1940s by Raphael Lemkin. 1948
UN Convention has codified it, and set definite criteria for its
determination. It can be determined either by national courts
where the event took place or an international criminal court, or
the International Court of Justice. This is the only way to solve
this issue.
CalıÅ~_lar: When dear Hrant Dink was brutally murdered, the human
face of Turkey also became visible after the murder (insanî yuzu
ortaya cıktı). Not only the 150.000 people at the funeral but also
the millions watching on TV in tears, showed their reaction to the
world. This was Turkey's human face. Even though we lost Hrant, our
very important intellectual, the world witnessed the conscience of
Turks (dunya Turklerin vicdanını gördu). The latest statement is
also a small expression of conscience. We are showing the same human
face of Turkey to the world. I see this as part of the same sentiment
that was there in Hrant's funeral. I believe that the world is going
to perceive this in a similar light.
Aktar: The world is already seeing it in this fashion. We really
need to calm down [in this country]. And politicians, CHP and MHP,
have important roles to play in this process. They need to express
that this is a citizens' movement based on conscience. Politicians
owe it to our soceity to express that this initiative does not aim
to create tensions.
Ä°skit: I want to express similar thoughts. Turkey is becoming more
democratic. This statement is also meaningful in the sense that Turkey
is pluralistic, that it has freedom of expression.
BölukbaÅ~_ı ;: I believe this initiative is an unfortunate move. It
serves the goals of Armenians by blackening the history of Turkey.
Azer: We had started the second part of the program by asking where
we go from here. We will continue the negotiations. We will stress
the historians' commission. But it won't be just another commission
among numerous other commissions. We will have them recognize our
borders. We will solve these issues before establishing diplomatic
relations. Lastly, we will go to International Court of Justice and
accept their verdict about the genocide issue. There is no risk in
this. English and Russian archives are open. French archives between
1914-18 are closed. I believe that the evidence supports us and that's
why they are not opening it. Armenians will also open their archives...
Birand: This was a rare 32nd Day Program. Everyone expressed their
opinions very respectfully. Perhaps because we had many diplomats in
our show tonight... Let's end our program on this note.
--Boundary_(ID_rbQ2Z+A9D2PHKB92Wi7f7w)--