Tweet
THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY
by Jean Ipdjian
Gibrahayer
Jan 14, 2009
Nicosia
On December 19, 2008 the Turkish TV program '32nd Day' organised a
live debate regarding the infamous 'Apology Statement' by a group of
Turkish academics and ex diplomats.
The program's producer was Mr. Ridyan Akar and the moderator of
the debate was Mr. Mehmet Ali Birand. The panel consisted of three
doves and four hawks. All are distinguished pillars of society or
distinguished statesmen.
I should also inform that an Internet site has been set up where
people can co-sign the above mentioned statement and post comments.
It is a fact that one of the greatest challenges faced by world
leaders is finding solutions to a handful of unsolved historical
problems which refuse to go away and creep up to the surface whenever
negotiations over regional and geopolitical are attempted to launch
or positively conclude. These 'unsolved' problems invariably have
their roots deeply buried in the pages of history and invariably have
religious intonations.
Often outsiders cannot understand the deep emotions that are stirred
from seemingly not so important or relevant issues.
It is also a fact that world leaders would love to be able to forget
about these problems and if possible force, persuade, bribe or sweet
talk one or both sides into accepting a settlement formulae
without really caring for their content.
After all, who likes to wash his neighbours' or acquaintance's dirty
underwear?
Such a problem is the Armenian Question. Being a substantial member of
the Christian or 'giavour' minority in the Ottoman Empire, throughout
the years the Armenians, together with the other minorities, had
suffered p ogroms and massacres, their women were frequently raped and
misused, their possessions and riches confiscated by officials. They
were deprived of all kinds of protection by the state and were at
the mercy of the hordes of often crazed fanaticised mobs. Through
the decades, and especially after the successful Greek Revolution
and the independence of the some Balkan states, Armenians came more
and more under the illusion that the European, Christian powers such
as Great Britain, France and Russia would intervene with the Sultans
and enforce reforms and provide deliverance for them from the heavy
yoke of the Ottomans.
So, it was this continuous threat of intervention on the part of the
Europeans on behalf of the minorities that was the root cause for
the decision taken by the leadership of the Ittihad ve Terakki ruling
party known as the Young Turk movement, to look for a final solution
of the Armenian Problem. The beginning of the First World war saw the
Turks fighting on the side of the Axis Powers against the Entente =0
D comprising of Great Britain, France and Russia, the same Powers who
had presented themselves as the protectors of the depressed, and who
could do nothing as they were on the other side of the high fence
erected around the Turkish mainland and the Anatolou. And thus the
opportunity was created to solve the Armenian Problem by the sword,
behind the thick curtains of war.
Thus the idea of the systematic deportation, annihilation and slaughter
of the Armenian in Turkey was born, planned and executed using all
means under the disposition of the state. What was not possible to
achieve by hand, was left for nature to complete through deprivation
and exposure in the arid expanses of the deserts of northern Syria.
Furthermore, it is a fact that Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire
had no aspirations of independence and considered themselves as being
loyal citizens of the empire, if only allowed to do so and not be
forced to seek deliverance from outside powers. Eventually, having been
denied that too, in some areas they took up arms and heroically fought
in a futile attempt to save themselves and their villages and cities.
So this is what the Statement and Debate are all about. This, and
all the legal and moral obligations which must follow.
The Debate, as it evolved, made interesting reading (in my case),
though it offered no new insights or revelations as regards the
beliefs of the participants.
In essence, it was a chatting exercise between the three trends of
thought that exist in Turkey today regarding the path that will take
Turkey into the 21st century. On one side were the representatives
of the projected modern face of Turkey. They are those, who believe
that Turkey will mature, albeit belatedly, to become part of Europe,
in peace with itself, without the burden of its often violent and
dark history. They believe that in order for Turkey to take her (a)
place in the civilised world, she has to pursue its European dream
and thread the path leading her into the family of truly European
Nations and the EU, rejuvenated and looking into the future with
clear eyes and having left its past behind.
Then there were the representatives of the more conservative people,
who want Turkey in Europe and the European Union, who want Turkey to
be perceived as a willing and accepted member of the higher echelons
of power and world politics, but refuse to shed its chauvinistic
self and refuse to change. They are those who believe that Turkey's
economic potential, her unsaturated market, her geographical position
and her military strength combine to make her acceptance into the EU
and among the powers to be, a proposition no on e dare refuse.
Finally, there were as well representatives of those who are the
ugly face of Turkey, who are so blinded=2 0by the 'turkism' and
arrogant self-perceptions, that they cannot accept any deviation
from her age-old policies of intimidation and terror, refusal of
compromise and denial of all things that do not conform to their
extreme nationalistic doctrines.
As such, there was a marked effort on the part of the doves to
de-politicise their Statement and distance themselves from any form
of demand or request for the Government to recognise the Genocide
as Genocide.
Also, I found their translation of the term 'Medz Yeghern', a term
around which a lot of discussion evolved, intentionally simplistic
and misguiding, because I believe that a more accurate translation
would have been the 'Great Calamity', which essentially is another
way of calling a holocaust.
The hawks, as expected, refused all and any kind of compromise. It
was clear that for them this was a sorry development and a grave
error. I am sure given the chance they would have gladly accused
the doves of treason, which a few years ago they could have easily
done, put them against a wall and solve the problem neatly by simply
shooting their mouths close. In their funny way of thinking, they
were trying to argue the massacres by rhetorically asking the panel
what they thought about the supposed killing of some villagers by
Armenian fighters, by the recent war in Azerbaijan, or the killing
of Turkis h diplomats by ASALA and other groups! This would be the
mother of lopsided logic ever expressed!
The fact that in Turkey today such a debate is being conducted and that
it was even possible to gather this group and finish the discussion
in a civilised matter should be considered extremely heartening that
maybe, just maybe this country and this nations with whom faith or
chance has dictated that we should live as neighbours, has started
taking the very first tentative steps into becoming a country that
can coexist peacefully with its neighbours, a society that can
accept different ideas and beliefs, a society that accepts variety,
a country where the rule of law is paramount and where all people
whatever their creed or religion are equals. The next and decisive
step is to be taken by the Government of Turkey, who has to find
the courage and boldness to recognise the Genocide and by accepting
the guilt of the perpetrators of the Genocide (the leadership and
government of Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century) close that
very ugly and sad page of its history.
I sincerely wish that the likes of Mr. Birand and Mr. Aktar will
eventually prevail and we will finally be able to make peace with
them and once and for all the souls of the hundreds of thousands of
victi ms of the Genocide will rest in peace.
by Jean Ipdjian
Gibrahayer
Jan 14, 2009
Nicosia
On December 19, 2008 the Turkish TV program '32nd Day' organised a
live debate regarding the infamous 'Apology Statement' by a group of
Turkish academics and ex diplomats.
The program's producer was Mr. Ridyan Akar and the moderator of
the debate was Mr. Mehmet Ali Birand. The panel consisted of three
doves and four hawks. All are distinguished pillars of society or
distinguished statesmen.
I should also inform that an Internet site has been set up where
people can co-sign the above mentioned statement and post comments.
It is a fact that one of the greatest challenges faced by world
leaders is finding solutions to a handful of unsolved historical
problems which refuse to go away and creep up to the surface whenever
negotiations over regional and geopolitical are attempted to launch
or positively conclude. These 'unsolved' problems invariably have
their roots deeply buried in the pages of history and invariably have
religious intonations.
Often outsiders cannot understand the deep emotions that are stirred
from seemingly not so important or relevant issues.
It is also a fact that world leaders would love to be able to forget
about these problems and if possible force, persuade, bribe or sweet
talk one or both sides into accepting a settlement formulae
without really caring for their content.
After all, who likes to wash his neighbours' or acquaintance's dirty
underwear?
Such a problem is the Armenian Question. Being a substantial member of
the Christian or 'giavour' minority in the Ottoman Empire, throughout
the years the Armenians, together with the other minorities, had
suffered p ogroms and massacres, their women were frequently raped and
misused, their possessions and riches confiscated by officials. They
were deprived of all kinds of protection by the state and were at
the mercy of the hordes of often crazed fanaticised mobs. Through
the decades, and especially after the successful Greek Revolution
and the independence of the some Balkan states, Armenians came more
and more under the illusion that the European, Christian powers such
as Great Britain, France and Russia would intervene with the Sultans
and enforce reforms and provide deliverance for them from the heavy
yoke of the Ottomans.
So, it was this continuous threat of intervention on the part of the
Europeans on behalf of the minorities that was the root cause for
the decision taken by the leadership of the Ittihad ve Terakki ruling
party known as the Young Turk movement, to look for a final solution
of the Armenian Problem. The beginning of the First World war saw the
Turks fighting on the side of the Axis Powers against the Entente =0
D comprising of Great Britain, France and Russia, the same Powers who
had presented themselves as the protectors of the depressed, and who
could do nothing as they were on the other side of the high fence
erected around the Turkish mainland and the Anatolou. And thus the
opportunity was created to solve the Armenian Problem by the sword,
behind the thick curtains of war.
Thus the idea of the systematic deportation, annihilation and slaughter
of the Armenian in Turkey was born, planned and executed using all
means under the disposition of the state. What was not possible to
achieve by hand, was left for nature to complete through deprivation
and exposure in the arid expanses of the deserts of northern Syria.
Furthermore, it is a fact that Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire
had no aspirations of independence and considered themselves as being
loyal citizens of the empire, if only allowed to do so and not be
forced to seek deliverance from outside powers. Eventually, having been
denied that too, in some areas they took up arms and heroically fought
in a futile attempt to save themselves and their villages and cities.
So this is what the Statement and Debate are all about. This, and
all the legal and moral obligations which must follow.
The Debate, as it evolved, made interesting reading (in my case),
though it offered no new insights or revelations as regards the
beliefs of the participants.
In essence, it was a chatting exercise between the three trends of
thought that exist in Turkey today regarding the path that will take
Turkey into the 21st century. On one side were the representatives
of the projected modern face of Turkey. They are those, who believe
that Turkey will mature, albeit belatedly, to become part of Europe,
in peace with itself, without the burden of its often violent and
dark history. They believe that in order for Turkey to take her (a)
place in the civilised world, she has to pursue its European dream
and thread the path leading her into the family of truly European
Nations and the EU, rejuvenated and looking into the future with
clear eyes and having left its past behind.
Then there were the representatives of the more conservative people,
who want Turkey in Europe and the European Union, who want Turkey to
be perceived as a willing and accepted member of the higher echelons
of power and world politics, but refuse to shed its chauvinistic
self and refuse to change. They are those who believe that Turkey's
economic potential, her unsaturated market, her geographical position
and her military strength combine to make her acceptance into the EU
and among the powers to be, a proposition no on e dare refuse.
Finally, there were as well representatives of those who are the
ugly face of Turkey, who are so blinded=2 0by the 'turkism' and
arrogant self-perceptions, that they cannot accept any deviation
from her age-old policies of intimidation and terror, refusal of
compromise and denial of all things that do not conform to their
extreme nationalistic doctrines.
As such, there was a marked effort on the part of the doves to
de-politicise their Statement and distance themselves from any form
of demand or request for the Government to recognise the Genocide
as Genocide.
Also, I found their translation of the term 'Medz Yeghern', a term
around which a lot of discussion evolved, intentionally simplistic
and misguiding, because I believe that a more accurate translation
would have been the 'Great Calamity', which essentially is another
way of calling a holocaust.
The hawks, as expected, refused all and any kind of compromise. It
was clear that for them this was a sorry development and a grave
error. I am sure given the chance they would have gladly accused
the doves of treason, which a few years ago they could have easily
done, put them against a wall and solve the problem neatly by simply
shooting their mouths close. In their funny way of thinking, they
were trying to argue the massacres by rhetorically asking the panel
what they thought about the supposed killing of some villagers by
Armenian fighters, by the recent war in Azerbaijan, or the killing
of Turkis h diplomats by ASALA and other groups! This would be the
mother of lopsided logic ever expressed!
The fact that in Turkey today such a debate is being conducted and that
it was even possible to gather this group and finish the discussion
in a civilised matter should be considered extremely heartening that
maybe, just maybe this country and this nations with whom faith or
chance has dictated that we should live as neighbours, has started
taking the very first tentative steps into becoming a country that
can coexist peacefully with its neighbours, a society that can
accept different ideas and beliefs, a society that accepts variety,
a country where the rule of law is paramount and where all people
whatever their creed or religion are equals. The next and decisive
step is to be taken by the Government of Turkey, who has to find
the courage and boldness to recognise the Genocide and by accepting
the guilt of the perpetrators of the Genocide (the leadership and
government of Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century) close that
very ugly and sad page of its history.
I sincerely wish that the likes of Mr. Birand and Mr. Aktar will
eventually prevail and we will finally be able to make peace with
them and once and for all the souls of the hundreds of thousands of
victi ms of the Genocide will rest in peace.