Tweet
FACING UP TO HISTORY
The Economist
March 11 2010
Both Turkey and the Armenian diaspora should look for ways of rewriting
a familiar script
NOT for the first time, Armenians sense a moment of vindication in
their struggle for the acknowledgment of the tragedy that befell their
forebears during the first world war. Turkey is angry. And America's
administration is straining to limit the damage.
The latest Turkish-American rift over the Armenian question--after a
congressional committee voted on March 4th to recognise the killings
of 1915 as genocide--looks wider than some previous ones. It coincides
with a general scratchiness between America and its ally. Turkey is
reluctant to slap sanctions on Iran. Anti-Americanism is running
high among Turks. Some suspect that Barack Obama retains his view
(expressed as a senator in 2008) that "the Armenian genocide is not
an allegation...but rather a widely documented fact."
Still, the chances are that after a deep sulk, Turkey will send its
ambassador back to Washington, and the administration will persuade
legislators to avoid a vote in the full House, for fear of wrecking
an important relationship--and worsening the fading prospects for
reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. A tired diplomatic ritual
will play out once again.
A happier ending?
Can any actor in this sorry drama do anything to improve the script?
One day a Turkish leader will be statesman enough to see that national
dignity is better served by acknowledging the sins committed on
Anatolian soil than by suppressing debate and punishing truth-tellers.
Such a leader could decouple relations with Armenia from Ottoman
history. (In any case, their argument today is more about the aftermath
of the war over Nagorno-Karabakh in the 1990s than over 1915.)
Some people in Turkey realise this. As one Turkish columnist has noted,
for Turkey to be so touchy about the minutiae of a congressional vote
betrays weakness, not strength. And nothing would silence Turkey's
detractors more than a genuine, no-holds-barred effort to probe the
events of 1915. The result of the Armenian deportations is indisputably
and horrifically clear: hundreds of thousands, probably more than a
million, died. But there is room for scholarly inquiry into the working
of the murky state machinery that led to that outcome--to determine
whether the tragedy was principally the result of murderous design
or culpable neglect. By inviting all scholars to peruse its archives
(something it has done only patchily), Turkey could disarm its critics.
For Armenians, securing recognition of their ancestors' fate is a
sacred cause. They can hardly be expected to set aside their bitter
memories because (as the heads of five big firms have complained)
American arms exports are at risk. Nor will Armenians accept the
argument that assessing the slaughter of 1915 is the work of scholars
not of political authorities, executive or legislative. As State
Department records show, the American government of the time analysed
those events and it had no doubt that "extermination" was the aim.
But if Armenians want to boost the chances that the authorities in
Ankara will eventually allow a searching look at one of the 20th
century's darkest episodes, they might think harder about their
congressional campaign. More than at any time since the modern
republic was founded in 1923, Turkish society is questioning received
truths (see article and article). That is mainly thanks to writers,
journalists and citizens who risk their skins to campaign for a more
honest approach to history. Among the finest of these was Hrant Dink,
an ethnic Armenian editor who was murdered in 2007. He worked for a
broad reconciliation between the Turks and Armenians, including the
recovery of historical truth, but not confined to it.
In his view, and that of other Turkish citizens who work for historical
justice, pressure from Congress could make the truth more elusive by
stiffening the backs of nationalists. Even among Turks who believe
that the slaughter of 1915 qualifies as genocide, there is a sense that
mentioning the g-word in a congressional resolution works against them.
If Turkey were a totalitarian state, there would be no case for
Armenian self-restraint. But precisely because Turkey is an (albeit
imperfect) democracy, the emphasis should be on giving Turks the best
possible chance to face up to their own past. Instead of telling Turks
what to think, Armenians should urge the authorities to promote inquiry
within Turkey, starting with an end to measures such as article 301
(which criminalises "insults to the Turkish nation"). The idea of
a stronger, healthier Turkish democracy may puzzle some Armenians;
but it is the best way to bring about the honesty for which they yearn.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst ory.cfm?story_id=15663510
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
The Economist
March 11 2010
Both Turkey and the Armenian diaspora should look for ways of rewriting
a familiar script
NOT for the first time, Armenians sense a moment of vindication in
their struggle for the acknowledgment of the tragedy that befell their
forebears during the first world war. Turkey is angry. And America's
administration is straining to limit the damage.
The latest Turkish-American rift over the Armenian question--after a
congressional committee voted on March 4th to recognise the killings
of 1915 as genocide--looks wider than some previous ones. It coincides
with a general scratchiness between America and its ally. Turkey is
reluctant to slap sanctions on Iran. Anti-Americanism is running
high among Turks. Some suspect that Barack Obama retains his view
(expressed as a senator in 2008) that "the Armenian genocide is not
an allegation...but rather a widely documented fact."
Still, the chances are that after a deep sulk, Turkey will send its
ambassador back to Washington, and the administration will persuade
legislators to avoid a vote in the full House, for fear of wrecking
an important relationship--and worsening the fading prospects for
reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. A tired diplomatic ritual
will play out once again.
A happier ending?
Can any actor in this sorry drama do anything to improve the script?
One day a Turkish leader will be statesman enough to see that national
dignity is better served by acknowledging the sins committed on
Anatolian soil than by suppressing debate and punishing truth-tellers.
Such a leader could decouple relations with Armenia from Ottoman
history. (In any case, their argument today is more about the aftermath
of the war over Nagorno-Karabakh in the 1990s than over 1915.)
Some people in Turkey realise this. As one Turkish columnist has noted,
for Turkey to be so touchy about the minutiae of a congressional vote
betrays weakness, not strength. And nothing would silence Turkey's
detractors more than a genuine, no-holds-barred effort to probe the
events of 1915. The result of the Armenian deportations is indisputably
and horrifically clear: hundreds of thousands, probably more than a
million, died. But there is room for scholarly inquiry into the working
of the murky state machinery that led to that outcome--to determine
whether the tragedy was principally the result of murderous design
or culpable neglect. By inviting all scholars to peruse its archives
(something it has done only patchily), Turkey could disarm its critics.
For Armenians, securing recognition of their ancestors' fate is a
sacred cause. They can hardly be expected to set aside their bitter
memories because (as the heads of five big firms have complained)
American arms exports are at risk. Nor will Armenians accept the
argument that assessing the slaughter of 1915 is the work of scholars
not of political authorities, executive or legislative. As State
Department records show, the American government of the time analysed
those events and it had no doubt that "extermination" was the aim.
But if Armenians want to boost the chances that the authorities in
Ankara will eventually allow a searching look at one of the 20th
century's darkest episodes, they might think harder about their
congressional campaign. More than at any time since the modern
republic was founded in 1923, Turkish society is questioning received
truths (see article and article). That is mainly thanks to writers,
journalists and citizens who risk their skins to campaign for a more
honest approach to history. Among the finest of these was Hrant Dink,
an ethnic Armenian editor who was murdered in 2007. He worked for a
broad reconciliation between the Turks and Armenians, including the
recovery of historical truth, but not confined to it.
In his view, and that of other Turkish citizens who work for historical
justice, pressure from Congress could make the truth more elusive by
stiffening the backs of nationalists. Even among Turks who believe
that the slaughter of 1915 qualifies as genocide, there is a sense that
mentioning the g-word in a congressional resolution works against them.
If Turkey were a totalitarian state, there would be no case for
Armenian self-restraint. But precisely because Turkey is an (albeit
imperfect) democracy, the emphasis should be on giving Turks the best
possible chance to face up to their own past. Instead of telling Turks
what to think, Armenians should urge the authorities to promote inquiry
within Turkey, starting with an end to measures such as article 301
(which criminalises "insults to the Turkish nation"). The idea of
a stronger, healthier Turkish democracy may puzzle some Armenians;
but it is the best way to bring about the honesty for which they yearn.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst ory.cfm?story_id=15663510
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress