Tweet
TURKISH-ARMENIAN WRITER SAYS OBAMA'S WORDS SHOULD NOT WORRY TURKEY
Today's Zaman
May 4 2009
Turkey
Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist Markar Esayan has said US
President Barack Obama's choice of words regarding the World War I-era
killings of Anatolian Armenians should not be worrisome for Turkey,
as "Meds Yeghern" (Armenian for "Great Catastrophe") is a humanitarian
term "beyond political debate."
"The Turkish public started to talk about the topic only recently,
so people are not familiar with the terminology used regarding the
issue, and every new development on the subject causes unnecessary
concern and indignation," he explained.
He said those who opposed an apology campaign initiated by Turkish
intellectuals in December of last year, which also used "great
catastrophe" to refer to the killings, misinformed the public by
claiming that the signatories of the campaign accepted the Armenian
position that the events constituted "genocide."
Obama's decision not to use the word "genocide" to describe the
historical events, but instead "Meds Yeghern" and "one of the great
atrocities of the 20th century," was a result of Obama's desire to
avoid hindering efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations.
'Meds Yeghern' is not linguistically identical with the word
"genocide." Obama's choice of words was intended to avoid disturbing
Turkey and, at the same time, to respond to his electorate. The Turkish
public started to talk about the topic only recently, so people are
not familiar with the terminology, and every new development on the
subject causes unnecessary concern and indignation'
In an interview with Monday Talk, Esayan talked about the response
of Turkish-Armenians and the Armenian diaspora to Obama's statement.
Did Obama's use of the Armenian phrase "Meds Yeghern" surprise you?
I knew that he was not going to use the same language employed by
his predecessors. We could read this from his remark following his
election that he had not changed his position on the issue. During his
visit to Turkey, he had said his views on the killings of Armenians,
which he has previously referred to as genocide, have not changed. He
also called on Turkey to address the killings of Armenians, but
gave clear signs that he would stay out of the debate, saying it
is up to Turkey and Armenia to deal with history. He was briefed
in his visit to Turkey that Armenia and Turkey are going through an
important and courageous process that should not be harmed. It was
luck that Obama was in Turkey prior to April 24. So on April 24 he
was careful, yet principled. "Meds Yeghern" is the wording used by
Armenians themselves. It is not linguistically identical with the
word "genocide." His choice of words was intended to avoid disturbing
Turkey and, at the same time, to respond to his electorate.
Why then was Turkey so disturbed?
Turkey hasn't been discussing this issue for a long time. The Turkish
public started to talk about the topic only recently, so people are not
familiar with the terminology used regarding the issue, and every new
development on the subject causes unnecessary concern and indignation.
Markar Esayan, Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist
He was born in Istanbul to an Armenian father and a Muslim
mother. After being educated in the schools of the Armenian community,
he graduated from Anadolu University's school of business. He had
a column in the Turkish-Armenian community newspaper Agos until he
became general publishing coordinator and a regular columnist at the
Taraf daily. He made major contributions to the restructuring of
Agos following the murder of Editor-in-Chief Hrant Dink. Esayan's
award-winning first novel, "Å~^imdinin Dar OdasI" (The Narrow Room
of Now), was released in 2005. His second novel, "KarÅ~_ılaÅ~_ma"
(E ncounter), was published in 2007.
The same terminology was used in the apology campaign.
Yes, it is the term used by Armenians to describe the catastrophe. It
is a humanitarian term beyond political debate. Those who opposed
the apology campaign misinformed the public by saying that the
signatories of the campaign accepted "genocide" even though they
did not use the term "genocide" and referred to the events as "Great
Catastrophe." Turkey found Obama's words harsh. But what Obama did
was not "fooling" Turkey, as the prime minister [Recep Tayyip Erdogan]
put it, because there are no words in his message regarding Turkey. He
refers to the events experienced in the last years of the Ottoman
Empire. He has certain beliefs regarding these events and he had
promised his electorate, so he was doing what was expected of him. We
should respect this.
'Turkish democracy to be consolidated if Dink murder unraveled'
Do you believe the Dink case could be merged with the Ergenekon case?
Most of the people widely known in the public for their opposing
views and open threats against Hrant Dink are now being tried in
relation to the Ergenekon case. This relation makes us think that
the Ergenekon and Dink cases are connected. In the first Ergenekon
indictment, there was only a small reference to the Dink case. In
the indictment we see that the prosecutor thinks there could be a
relationship, but he could not find conclusive evidence. However,
in the second Ergenekon indictment, which was released recently,
there are more serious references to the Dink case.
Like what?
The lawyers in the Dink case are closely examining the second
indictment, but as far as I have seen, in the murder of Christians at
the Zirve publishing house, there was a person, Metin Dogan, whose
testimony was included in the second indictment. He says he came to
Istanbul and spoke with Veli Kucuk and Muzaffer Tekin, and he heard
them talking about eliminating such persons as Hrant Dink and Orhan
Pamuk. According to the indictment, he also said Kucuk and Tekin talked
about the people who would be able to commit such acts, and they said
it was more difficult to kill Pamuk but that Dink was an easy target.
The Council of State shooting in 2006 was recently merged with the
Ergenekon case.
This happened based on the testimony of Osman Yıldırım [another
suspect in the shooting]. Yıldırım's testimony was found quite
valuable. We will see if Metin Dogan's testimony carries such
importance. Apart from its ties to the Ergenekon case, we are worried
about many other deficiencies.
Such as?
The fact that there were plans to assassinate Dink was apparent to the
security forces even one-and-a-half years before the murder. There are
intelligence reports showing this. The intelligence flow regarding
plans to kill Dink started in November 2005, and these reached
security circles, including the Trabzon gendarmerie, Trabzon police
forces and the head of the intelligence services and security forces
in Ä°stanbul. The person who bought the murder weapon was CoÅ~_kun
Ä°gci, who is the brother-in-law of Yasin Hayal, a prime suspect in
the Dink case, and Ä°gci himself informed security forces that Hayal
would kill Dink. The dates of the reports proving such connections
were changed. So their hard evidence has been eliminated in the
Dink case. This could be a result of negligence on the part of the
officials. But this is the most disturbing part. The lawyers in the
Dink case asked the court in the most recent hearing that the heads
of these intelligence units be called to give their testimony, but
the court rejected the request.
Why do you think the court acted that way?
They said their testimony "would not contribute to the case." The
inspection report by the Prime Ministry pointed out the importance
of pursuing the issue, even though the report was only advisory. On
the other hand, we genuinely need to trust the court and the legal
system. The Dink case is such a symbolic case, revealing the truth
there would be beneficial to Turkish democracy.
Could you tell us more about this idea?
The Dink murder intensely demonstrates how some people used the state's
potential -- call it the deep state, Gladio, Ergenekon -- to commit
a murder. It is the most concentrated, solid case in that regard. If
these relations are revealed, Turkish democracy could have a chance
to develop more because it will go through a cleansing process.
But the Armenian-Americans do not seem pleased, either.
We are sometimes forced to make generalizations, but I would like
to emphasize that the Armenian-Americans are not homogenous in that
regard. The Armenian diaspora is made up of several different pieces
not identical to each other. The Turkish public often thinks that
the diaspora is a unified movement that can be mobilized anywhere and
at any time and that their main unifying themes are anti-Turkishness
and the issue of genocide. This viewpoint is not correct. It is true
that some Armenian-Americans were disappointed by Obama's choice of
words in his message. However, there are also Armenian-Americans who
have common sense and who genuinely support the rapprochement between
Turkey and Armenia. They think this process of rapprochement is more
important than Obama's use of the term "genocide."
Do you think the reaction in Armenia is diverse, as well?
They are not all homogenous on the issue. The Armenian opposition to
the opening of the border with Turkey has been weakening compared
to the past. There was not much indignation in Armenia following
Obama's message. Their agenda is more in line with the reality that
they want to do trade with Turkey, visit Turkish lands that they
once lived in and have a better standard of living. They have a
different point of view from the diaspora. In the diaspora's view,
Turkish-Armenian relations were frozen in 1915. They attach more
importance to symbolic words.
'Turkish-Armenians have most balanced views' Were the Turkish-Armenians
eagerly waiting to see what words Obama would use in his message?
They were. Turkish-Armenians, as a bloc, support the rapprochement
between Turkey and Armenia, and they want the borders to be
opened. Actually, they want a disassociation between the words
"problem" and "Armenians." I am about 40 years old now, and since
I came into this world, there has always been the phrase "Armenian
problem," which carries only negative connotations.
Do Turkish-Armenians have ties with Armenians in Armenia? Do you
visit Armenia?
I have never visited Armenia. Turkish-Armenians do not have many ties
with the Armenians living there. We have established our lives here as
Turkish-Armenians. We feel like we belong to Turkey. Our emotional ties
with the Armenians are not very different from the ties of the Turkish
people to the Azerbaijanis living in Azerbaijan. If the border opens
between Turkey and Armenia, there will be more human contact between
the communities. In Turkey there are about 30,000 Armenians working,
and they already have a big function, since they go back to Armenia
and tell their friends and family about the Turkish people. So the
perceptions of Turks in Armenia have been renewed and have become
more realistic. Old fears that "Turks are horrible" are fading.
Your father is a Turkish-Armenian and your mother is a Muslim. Is
this a usual combination?
These types of combinations are not uncommon, and there are so many
of these partnerships that it worries the Armenian community. Out
of every three young Armenians, one marries a non-Armenian. The
Armenian community is quite tolerant in that regard, but it is also
a double-edged sword. Since the Armenian community is so small in
Turkey, they don't want to get even smaller.
What do the numbers show?
We entered the republican period with 300,000 Armenians in Turkey,
130,000 of them in Anatolia. Now we are about 50,000. If Armenians
living in Turkey did not have to immigrate as a result of the
alienating policies of the Turkish state, we would be at least a few
million today.
What kind of difficulties did you face as an Armenian child living
in Turkey?
We had stressful times during ASALA's [Armenian Secret Army for the
Liberation of Armenia, a terrorist organization that targeted Turkish
diplomats in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s] assassinations. We were
not insulted by our Turkish neighbors, but relations were difficult
at times and we felt the stress. We became more aware of our Armenian
identity as a result. We have had feelings of guilt.
Is the issue of "genocide" a unifying theme for the Armenians of
Turkey?
The state's pressure on minorities has created reservations among
Turkish-Armenians about discussing the events of 1915. We don't even
talk about it among ourselves. Another reason for not discussing the
issue is to look to the future rather than the past because we live
in this country and we want a future for our children here. There
is another simple reason for Turkish-Armenians not to discuss the
issues of 1915, and that is fear. You cannot talk about it or write
about it and you cannot speak about your pain. I know it very well
from my family. On the other hand, Turkish-Armenians, more than any
other Armenian community in the world, realize the difference between
the Turkish public and Turkish state policies.
Why do you think the Turkish-Armenians are different?
Because they conduct business in Turkish society and marry Turkish
people. They have all kinds of people-to-people relationships in the
society. So they have the most objective, balanced point of view,
especially expressed by the Turkish-Armenian intellectuals such as
Hrant Dink.
Today's Zaman
May 4 2009
Turkey
Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist Markar Esayan has said US
President Barack Obama's choice of words regarding the World War I-era
killings of Anatolian Armenians should not be worrisome for Turkey,
as "Meds Yeghern" (Armenian for "Great Catastrophe") is a humanitarian
term "beyond political debate."
"The Turkish public started to talk about the topic only recently,
so people are not familiar with the terminology used regarding the
issue, and every new development on the subject causes unnecessary
concern and indignation," he explained.
He said those who opposed an apology campaign initiated by Turkish
intellectuals in December of last year, which also used "great
catastrophe" to refer to the killings, misinformed the public by
claiming that the signatories of the campaign accepted the Armenian
position that the events constituted "genocide."
Obama's decision not to use the word "genocide" to describe the
historical events, but instead "Meds Yeghern" and "one of the great
atrocities of the 20th century," was a result of Obama's desire to
avoid hindering efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations.
'Meds Yeghern' is not linguistically identical with the word
"genocide." Obama's choice of words was intended to avoid disturbing
Turkey and, at the same time, to respond to his electorate. The Turkish
public started to talk about the topic only recently, so people are
not familiar with the terminology, and every new development on the
subject causes unnecessary concern and indignation'
In an interview with Monday Talk, Esayan talked about the response
of Turkish-Armenians and the Armenian diaspora to Obama's statement.
Did Obama's use of the Armenian phrase "Meds Yeghern" surprise you?
I knew that he was not going to use the same language employed by
his predecessors. We could read this from his remark following his
election that he had not changed his position on the issue. During his
visit to Turkey, he had said his views on the killings of Armenians,
which he has previously referred to as genocide, have not changed. He
also called on Turkey to address the killings of Armenians, but
gave clear signs that he would stay out of the debate, saying it
is up to Turkey and Armenia to deal with history. He was briefed
in his visit to Turkey that Armenia and Turkey are going through an
important and courageous process that should not be harmed. It was
luck that Obama was in Turkey prior to April 24. So on April 24 he
was careful, yet principled. "Meds Yeghern" is the wording used by
Armenians themselves. It is not linguistically identical with the
word "genocide." His choice of words was intended to avoid disturbing
Turkey and, at the same time, to respond to his electorate.
Why then was Turkey so disturbed?
Turkey hasn't been discussing this issue for a long time. The Turkish
public started to talk about the topic only recently, so people are not
familiar with the terminology used regarding the issue, and every new
development on the subject causes unnecessary concern and indignation.
Markar Esayan, Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist
He was born in Istanbul to an Armenian father and a Muslim
mother. After being educated in the schools of the Armenian community,
he graduated from Anadolu University's school of business. He had
a column in the Turkish-Armenian community newspaper Agos until he
became general publishing coordinator and a regular columnist at the
Taraf daily. He made major contributions to the restructuring of
Agos following the murder of Editor-in-Chief Hrant Dink. Esayan's
award-winning first novel, "Å~^imdinin Dar OdasI" (The Narrow Room
of Now), was released in 2005. His second novel, "KarÅ~_ılaÅ~_ma"
(E ncounter), was published in 2007.
The same terminology was used in the apology campaign.
Yes, it is the term used by Armenians to describe the catastrophe. It
is a humanitarian term beyond political debate. Those who opposed
the apology campaign misinformed the public by saying that the
signatories of the campaign accepted "genocide" even though they
did not use the term "genocide" and referred to the events as "Great
Catastrophe." Turkey found Obama's words harsh. But what Obama did
was not "fooling" Turkey, as the prime minister [Recep Tayyip Erdogan]
put it, because there are no words in his message regarding Turkey. He
refers to the events experienced in the last years of the Ottoman
Empire. He has certain beliefs regarding these events and he had
promised his electorate, so he was doing what was expected of him. We
should respect this.
'Turkish democracy to be consolidated if Dink murder unraveled'
Do you believe the Dink case could be merged with the Ergenekon case?
Most of the people widely known in the public for their opposing
views and open threats against Hrant Dink are now being tried in
relation to the Ergenekon case. This relation makes us think that
the Ergenekon and Dink cases are connected. In the first Ergenekon
indictment, there was only a small reference to the Dink case. In
the indictment we see that the prosecutor thinks there could be a
relationship, but he could not find conclusive evidence. However,
in the second Ergenekon indictment, which was released recently,
there are more serious references to the Dink case.
Like what?
The lawyers in the Dink case are closely examining the second
indictment, but as far as I have seen, in the murder of Christians at
the Zirve publishing house, there was a person, Metin Dogan, whose
testimony was included in the second indictment. He says he came to
Istanbul and spoke with Veli Kucuk and Muzaffer Tekin, and he heard
them talking about eliminating such persons as Hrant Dink and Orhan
Pamuk. According to the indictment, he also said Kucuk and Tekin talked
about the people who would be able to commit such acts, and they said
it was more difficult to kill Pamuk but that Dink was an easy target.
The Council of State shooting in 2006 was recently merged with the
Ergenekon case.
This happened based on the testimony of Osman Yıldırım [another
suspect in the shooting]. Yıldırım's testimony was found quite
valuable. We will see if Metin Dogan's testimony carries such
importance. Apart from its ties to the Ergenekon case, we are worried
about many other deficiencies.
Such as?
The fact that there were plans to assassinate Dink was apparent to the
security forces even one-and-a-half years before the murder. There are
intelligence reports showing this. The intelligence flow regarding
plans to kill Dink started in November 2005, and these reached
security circles, including the Trabzon gendarmerie, Trabzon police
forces and the head of the intelligence services and security forces
in Ä°stanbul. The person who bought the murder weapon was CoÅ~_kun
Ä°gci, who is the brother-in-law of Yasin Hayal, a prime suspect in
the Dink case, and Ä°gci himself informed security forces that Hayal
would kill Dink. The dates of the reports proving such connections
were changed. So their hard evidence has been eliminated in the
Dink case. This could be a result of negligence on the part of the
officials. But this is the most disturbing part. The lawyers in the
Dink case asked the court in the most recent hearing that the heads
of these intelligence units be called to give their testimony, but
the court rejected the request.
Why do you think the court acted that way?
They said their testimony "would not contribute to the case." The
inspection report by the Prime Ministry pointed out the importance
of pursuing the issue, even though the report was only advisory. On
the other hand, we genuinely need to trust the court and the legal
system. The Dink case is such a symbolic case, revealing the truth
there would be beneficial to Turkish democracy.
Could you tell us more about this idea?
The Dink murder intensely demonstrates how some people used the state's
potential -- call it the deep state, Gladio, Ergenekon -- to commit
a murder. It is the most concentrated, solid case in that regard. If
these relations are revealed, Turkish democracy could have a chance
to develop more because it will go through a cleansing process.
But the Armenian-Americans do not seem pleased, either.
We are sometimes forced to make generalizations, but I would like
to emphasize that the Armenian-Americans are not homogenous in that
regard. The Armenian diaspora is made up of several different pieces
not identical to each other. The Turkish public often thinks that
the diaspora is a unified movement that can be mobilized anywhere and
at any time and that their main unifying themes are anti-Turkishness
and the issue of genocide. This viewpoint is not correct. It is true
that some Armenian-Americans were disappointed by Obama's choice of
words in his message. However, there are also Armenian-Americans who
have common sense and who genuinely support the rapprochement between
Turkey and Armenia. They think this process of rapprochement is more
important than Obama's use of the term "genocide."
Do you think the reaction in Armenia is diverse, as well?
They are not all homogenous on the issue. The Armenian opposition to
the opening of the border with Turkey has been weakening compared
to the past. There was not much indignation in Armenia following
Obama's message. Their agenda is more in line with the reality that
they want to do trade with Turkey, visit Turkish lands that they
once lived in and have a better standard of living. They have a
different point of view from the diaspora. In the diaspora's view,
Turkish-Armenian relations were frozen in 1915. They attach more
importance to symbolic words.
'Turkish-Armenians have most balanced views' Were the Turkish-Armenians
eagerly waiting to see what words Obama would use in his message?
They were. Turkish-Armenians, as a bloc, support the rapprochement
between Turkey and Armenia, and they want the borders to be
opened. Actually, they want a disassociation between the words
"problem" and "Armenians." I am about 40 years old now, and since
I came into this world, there has always been the phrase "Armenian
problem," which carries only negative connotations.
Do Turkish-Armenians have ties with Armenians in Armenia? Do you
visit Armenia?
I have never visited Armenia. Turkish-Armenians do not have many ties
with the Armenians living there. We have established our lives here as
Turkish-Armenians. We feel like we belong to Turkey. Our emotional ties
with the Armenians are not very different from the ties of the Turkish
people to the Azerbaijanis living in Azerbaijan. If the border opens
between Turkey and Armenia, there will be more human contact between
the communities. In Turkey there are about 30,000 Armenians working,
and they already have a big function, since they go back to Armenia
and tell their friends and family about the Turkish people. So the
perceptions of Turks in Armenia have been renewed and have become
more realistic. Old fears that "Turks are horrible" are fading.
Your father is a Turkish-Armenian and your mother is a Muslim. Is
this a usual combination?
These types of combinations are not uncommon, and there are so many
of these partnerships that it worries the Armenian community. Out
of every three young Armenians, one marries a non-Armenian. The
Armenian community is quite tolerant in that regard, but it is also
a double-edged sword. Since the Armenian community is so small in
Turkey, they don't want to get even smaller.
What do the numbers show?
We entered the republican period with 300,000 Armenians in Turkey,
130,000 of them in Anatolia. Now we are about 50,000. If Armenians
living in Turkey did not have to immigrate as a result of the
alienating policies of the Turkish state, we would be at least a few
million today.
What kind of difficulties did you face as an Armenian child living
in Turkey?
We had stressful times during ASALA's [Armenian Secret Army for the
Liberation of Armenia, a terrorist organization that targeted Turkish
diplomats in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s] assassinations. We were
not insulted by our Turkish neighbors, but relations were difficult
at times and we felt the stress. We became more aware of our Armenian
identity as a result. We have had feelings of guilt.
Is the issue of "genocide" a unifying theme for the Armenians of
Turkey?
The state's pressure on minorities has created reservations among
Turkish-Armenians about discussing the events of 1915. We don't even
talk about it among ourselves. Another reason for not discussing the
issue is to look to the future rather than the past because we live
in this country and we want a future for our children here. There
is another simple reason for Turkish-Armenians not to discuss the
issues of 1915, and that is fear. You cannot talk about it or write
about it and you cannot speak about your pain. I know it very well
from my family. On the other hand, Turkish-Armenians, more than any
other Armenian community in the world, realize the difference between
the Turkish public and Turkish state policies.
Why do you think the Turkish-Armenians are different?
Because they conduct business in Turkish society and marry Turkish
people. They have all kinds of people-to-people relationships in the
society. So they have the most objective, balanced point of view,
especially expressed by the Turkish-Armenian intellectuals such as
Hrant Dink.