Tweet
Sunday's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 7 2008
Armenian visit, Ergenekon and the Ottoman Ergenekon
by IHSAN YILMAZ
President Abdullah Gül's visit to Armenia has generally been applauded
by the various strata of society. The two exceptions are our
nationalist opposition parties: the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
and the Republican People's Party (CHP). As these parties hope to gain
from nationalist sentiments, it seems that any solution to the
Armenian issue will not make them happy. This is a simple summary of
modern Turkish history. Turkey is surrounded by enemies, and thus we
need strong nationalist authoritarian guardians that will protect
us. Now as the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party)
zero-problem-with-neighbors policy has shown, we can enter into
dialogue with our neighbors and even talk about our differences. I
hope we can succeed at this with Armenia as well.
As far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of people do not have
any problem with entering into dialogue with Armenia. Even the
terrible incidents that took place around 1915 and later the Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) terrorist
organization's assassinations of our diplomats did not change Turks'
positive feelings toward Armenians. Generally speaking, the remaining
Armenians did not face any hostility from Turks. Yet, the state's
position is a completely different story.
Even by law they have not been treated as first-class citizens. The
Turkish state's definition of a citizen has somehow -- unofficially
and in practice -- been limited to Muslims. Non-Muslim Turkish
citizens could never get sensitive bureaucratic positions. This is in
full contrast with the Ottoman experience. In terms of diversity and
tolerance, the Republic of Turkey is light years behind the Ottomans.
The state has always denied that there was any Armenian massacre
ordered by the state. I am not a historian and have not studied the
1915 incidents in detail, but whenever I -- as an ordinary Turk --
think about the issue, the Turkish state's treatment of its other
citizens instantly comes to my mind and my mind starts drawing
parallels. I know very well that this is not a scientific technique or
instrument utilized by historians, but not every Turk has to be a
historian and they can still have feelings, ideas and opinions on
certain matters.
Yes, whenever I start thinking about the Armenian issue and the 1915
incidents, the state's treatment of Kurds in southeastern Turkey comes
to my mind. Banning their mother tongue is a prime example. Could
there be any bigger torture than that? Then I remember the thousands
of young people -- leftists, rightists, Kurds -- who were continuously
tortured in Turkish prisons just after the 1980 coup. Then I remember
how Turkey had to pay many thousands of dollars in compensation on
many occasions to our citizens of Kurdish ethnicity just because some
of our soldiers made them eat cow manure. Then I think that if some of
our administrators and bureaucrats could do all this to our citizens
in this day and age, then similar-minded Ottoman politicians,
administrators and bureaucrats would find it suitable to react to
Armenian hostilities -- encouraged by the great powers and Russia --
by simply deciding to exile them to Syria without taking enough
precautions about health and safety issues.
Moreover, some "Ottoman Ergenekonians" could easily target these
civilians. My conscience and my reading of modern Turkey, including
the Ergenekon case, convince me that the Ergenekonian-like
ultra-patriots who think the country is in danger -- and it was indeed
in danger -- could easily massacre Armenian civilians and they would
not really need any legislation or document signed by a minister to do
that. I find it funny when our nationalist historians try to prove
that there are no documents signed by Ottoman authorities to order the
Armenian massacre. Did today's Ergenekonians need such a document to
make Kurdish villagers eat cow manure or to kill many people?
Sept 7 2008
Armenian visit, Ergenekon and the Ottoman Ergenekon
by IHSAN YILMAZ
President Abdullah Gül's visit to Armenia has generally been applauded
by the various strata of society. The two exceptions are our
nationalist opposition parties: the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)
and the Republican People's Party (CHP). As these parties hope to gain
from nationalist sentiments, it seems that any solution to the
Armenian issue will not make them happy. This is a simple summary of
modern Turkish history. Turkey is surrounded by enemies, and thus we
need strong nationalist authoritarian guardians that will protect
us. Now as the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party)
zero-problem-with-neighbors policy has shown, we can enter into
dialogue with our neighbors and even talk about our differences. I
hope we can succeed at this with Armenia as well.
As far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of people do not have
any problem with entering into dialogue with Armenia. Even the
terrible incidents that took place around 1915 and later the Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) terrorist
organization's assassinations of our diplomats did not change Turks'
positive feelings toward Armenians. Generally speaking, the remaining
Armenians did not face any hostility from Turks. Yet, the state's
position is a completely different story.
Even by law they have not been treated as first-class citizens. The
Turkish state's definition of a citizen has somehow -- unofficially
and in practice -- been limited to Muslims. Non-Muslim Turkish
citizens could never get sensitive bureaucratic positions. This is in
full contrast with the Ottoman experience. In terms of diversity and
tolerance, the Republic of Turkey is light years behind the Ottomans.
The state has always denied that there was any Armenian massacre
ordered by the state. I am not a historian and have not studied the
1915 incidents in detail, but whenever I -- as an ordinary Turk --
think about the issue, the Turkish state's treatment of its other
citizens instantly comes to my mind and my mind starts drawing
parallels. I know very well that this is not a scientific technique or
instrument utilized by historians, but not every Turk has to be a
historian and they can still have feelings, ideas and opinions on
certain matters.
Yes, whenever I start thinking about the Armenian issue and the 1915
incidents, the state's treatment of Kurds in southeastern Turkey comes
to my mind. Banning their mother tongue is a prime example. Could
there be any bigger torture than that? Then I remember the thousands
of young people -- leftists, rightists, Kurds -- who were continuously
tortured in Turkish prisons just after the 1980 coup. Then I remember
how Turkey had to pay many thousands of dollars in compensation on
many occasions to our citizens of Kurdish ethnicity just because some
of our soldiers made them eat cow manure. Then I think that if some of
our administrators and bureaucrats could do all this to our citizens
in this day and age, then similar-minded Ottoman politicians,
administrators and bureaucrats would find it suitable to react to
Armenian hostilities -- encouraged by the great powers and Russia --
by simply deciding to exile them to Syria without taking enough
precautions about health and safety issues.
Moreover, some "Ottoman Ergenekonians" could easily target these
civilians. My conscience and my reading of modern Turkey, including
the Ergenekon case, convince me that the Ergenekonian-like
ultra-patriots who think the country is in danger -- and it was indeed
in danger -- could easily massacre Armenian civilians and they would
not really need any legislation or document signed by a minister to do
that. I find it funny when our nationalist historians try to prove
that there are no documents signed by Ottoman authorities to order the
Armenian massacre. Did today's Ergenekonians need such a document to
make Kurdish villagers eat cow manure or to kill many people?