Tweet
Armenian identity 'based on anti-Turkism'
Ergun Kirlikovali
news.az
May 10 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Ergun Kirlikovali, president-elect of the Assembly
of Turkish-American Associations and co-founder of the Pax Turcica
Institute.
How would you comment on the French Senate's rejection of a bill to
criminalize denial of the alleged "Armenian genocide"?
I think that the French legislators finally came to terms with the
reality that the only authoritative body to determine whether any
claimed historical atrocity constitutes an act of genocide per the
relevant 1948 UN Convention is the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in The Hague. No legislature in the world has the authority
or moral right to adopt even a non-binding resolution accusing an
entire foreign nation of genocide without the legal "due process" at a
"competent tribunal". This is especially so if the narrative relied on
is a heavily politicized, partisan and biased one based on a mixture
of constantly evolving historical revisionism, paid political lobbying,
intimidation, and harassment, as in the Armenian claims.
Prosecuting those who refuse to accept such a monumental travesty
would constitute insanity, not unlike a modern-style lynching, on
behalf of the French legislature.
The decision taken by the French Senate now comes as a stark contrast
to the 2001 resolution by the French National Assembly to recognize the
so-called "Armenian genocide". Such bigoted resolutions are insulting
towards the memory of over half a million Turkish civilians massacred
by Armenian armed formations in Eastern Anatolia which triggered the
Ottoman decision of temporary resettlement (TERESET) during World War
I. And I sincerely hope that some time in future, the French National
Assembly will also rescind its 2001 resolution as a deeply racist,
biased, dishonest and immoral piece of legislation.
What are the prospects for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation while
Armenians try to get the alleged "genocide" recognized in the world?
Attempts by Armenian political pressure groups in the diaspora to
characterize the temporary resettlement (TERESET) of Armenians by
the Ottoman authorities during World War I as an act of genocide not
only impede Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, but also strip Armenia
of its future. It is ironic that none of those vociferous supporters
of historical revisionism and growing Turcophobia in the Armenian
diaspora today seem willing to share the real difficulties of Armenian
society or to live in independent Armenia.
As far as Turkish-Armenian reconciliation goes, it is a complex process
which may take years. There is a tremendous amount of negativity
from Armenians towards Turkey and Turkish people which has been
fueled for decades by Armenian political interest groups. These
groups have exploited their own people to benefit themselves and
to ensure their existence through formulation of identity based on
anti-Turkism. Such ideology has no place in the 21st century, when
international relations are no longer defined by ethnic differences
or historical indoctrinations. This hatred must be alleviated, the
historical travesty must stop.
The Armenians, both in the diaspora and Armenia, must understand what
is meant by "Just Memory", a term that perhaps best describes the
policy of Turkey towards the Turkish-Armenian conflict. "Just Memory"
recognizes the suffering of all in the area and era, not just that
of the Armenians, and correctly points to the Armenian complicity
and responsibility in the turmoil and suffering. No narrative can be
taken seriously if it ignores the seven T's of the Turkish-Armenian
conflict: Armenian terrorism, turmoil (revolts), treason, territorial
demands, Turkish suffering at the hands of Armenians, TERESET and
Turcophobia. "Just Memory" tries to bring sides together based on
irrefutable facts, not divide or polarize them with partisan narratives
as in genocide claims.
Some people say that the Turkish side is not active enough, or at
least not as active as the Armenians, in providing the international
community with the real facts about 1915. Do you agree and, if so,
what should be done to change the situation?
I do agree with this claim to a certain extent, and there are
subjective reasons for that. About three million Turks perished
during World War I, including 1.1 million in Eastern Anatolia alone,
half a million of them at the hands of Armenian armed groups, such
as the "fedayeen" of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF -
Dashnaktsutyun). Over five million Turks were forcefully displaced
between 1821 and 1922 by ethno-religious conflicts from the Balkans to
the Caucasus. While the West ignored this enormous Turkish suffering
because of prejudice, Turks stayed silent about their own suffering,
mostly for cultural reasons. It is not in the Turkish character to cry,
scream, complain, beg, and otherwise show public lament in the face of
defeat. Turks, as in most other Asian cultures, grieve silently. But
this dignified silence of the Turks was deliberately misrepresented by
the Armenians as an admission of guilt for the alleged genocide. After
the successful conclusion of the war of independence in 1922, Turks,
full of hope, established a new republic and embarked upon an ambitious
course to rebuild their nation and country. It was time to forgive
and forget, establish a lasting peace, both at home and around the
world, work hard for a better future and maintain hope. While Turkey
cultivated hope and peace to become the 16th largest economy in the
world today, Armenians, preferring to cultivate hatred and vengeance,
created their current land-locked, poverty-stricken, violent and
corrupt society built on irredentist policies and in conflict with
all its neighbours.
Nevertheless, unlike Armenians, Turkish society does not suffer from
an identity crisis developed over self-imposed interpretations of
history. This in turn resulted in the rather soft attitude of Turks
towards Armenian allegations. That said, it might be educational to
point out that according to unverified sources, Armenians created
about 26,000 publications since 1915 compared to the Turkish side's
roughly 1,000, most of which were published in the last three decades.
Including the films, documentaries, political resolutions, and media
articles, one can clearly see that the Armenians have created an
industry around the alleged genocide, but they still cannot prevail.
Such is the power of truth. We have a profound proverb in Turkish
as you know: "Gunes balcikla sivanmaz" which means one cannot cover
the sun with mud. That's what Armenians have been trying to do since
1915 while the Turks were not looking. Now that the Turks are looking,
the Armenians can no longer be allowed to dupe the world.
So, the situation may have fundamentally changed in recent years,
mostly because of Turkey's growing influence in the world as well
as the increased determination of the Turkish diaspora to stand up
for its dignity and rights. Turkish-Americans today are no longer
willing to accept Armenian allegations but to confront them with
unbiased historical truth. When someone is armed with the truth,
no propaganda, political manipulation, intimidation, or harassment
can stop that person. That's how we, Turkish Americans, feel today.
May Turkey improve its relations with Armenia before progress in the
Karabakh settlement?
In 1991, Turkey was one of the first countries that recognized
Armenia's independence and established diplomatic relations with
Armenia. However, in April 1993, after the Armenian occupation of
Kalbajar District in Azerbaijan outside Nagorno-Karabakh, it became
apparent that Armenia is determined to pursue an outright expansionist
policy implemented by military aggression. Turkey ceased its diplomatic
relations and closed its border with Armenia invoking the violation
of international law which was, in fact, also voiced by the United
Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Armenian forces
withdraw from the occupied Kalbajar District. That 1993 decision by
the Turkish government was not simply a show of solidarity with Turkic
brethren as frequently misrepresented by Armenia and the West, but
that of a strong moral and legal stance against injustice, a stance
that has distinguished Turks for centuries.
In 2008, Turkey once more demonstrated its good will towards building
constructive, neighbourly relations with Armenia by enacting the
so-called soccer diplomacy towards Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.
After President Gul visited Yerevan in 2008, President Sargsyan came
to Bursa in 2009. Then Turkey signed the protocols with Armenia. There
are certain steps in response steps that must be taken by Armenia
to proceed with the protocols. The key to unlock the deadlock is a
demonstration of Armenia's willingness to become a good neighbour and
a constructive regional partner. Specifically, Armenia must cease
its occupation of Azerbaijani territories and allow for the return
of over 800,000 internally displaced Azerbaijani civilians to their
homes in Nagorno-Karabakh and seven other adjacent occupied districts
of Azerbaijan. Without that, reconciliation with Armenia would be an
undignified move for Turkey. Frankly, I cannot see any government in
Turkey, past, present or future, that can improve its relations with
Armenia before there is tangible progress in the Karabakh settlement
acceptable to Azerbaijan. The West must now hear Turkey's appeal
and start showing compassion for the 800,000 Azeri IDPs (internally
displaced persons) and reverse the Armenian aggression on Azerbaijani
soil.
What are the prospects for a Karabakh settlement?
It is clear today that Azerbaijan's influence in the South Caucasus
has grown tremendously and that Turkey is transforming from a regional
to a global power player, while Armenia is becoming increasingly
isolated and irrelevant in the regional integration processes. In this
situation, Armenia must make a choice between a path of gradually
losing its independence (while turning into a distant province of
Russia) and a path of cooperation and regional re-engagement. The
key to this choice is the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, the
return of Azerbaijani IDPs to their homes, and the re-establishment
of neighbourly relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And the ball of that choice is in Armenia's court now. Aggression
can no longer be allowed to stand in this day and age. The sooner
Armenia realizes this hard fact, the better it is for the region.
From: A. Papazian
Ergun Kirlikovali
news.az
May 10 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Ergun Kirlikovali, president-elect of the Assembly
of Turkish-American Associations and co-founder of the Pax Turcica
Institute.
How would you comment on the French Senate's rejection of a bill to
criminalize denial of the alleged "Armenian genocide"?
I think that the French legislators finally came to terms with the
reality that the only authoritative body to determine whether any
claimed historical atrocity constitutes an act of genocide per the
relevant 1948 UN Convention is the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in The Hague. No legislature in the world has the authority
or moral right to adopt even a non-binding resolution accusing an
entire foreign nation of genocide without the legal "due process" at a
"competent tribunal". This is especially so if the narrative relied on
is a heavily politicized, partisan and biased one based on a mixture
of constantly evolving historical revisionism, paid political lobbying,
intimidation, and harassment, as in the Armenian claims.
Prosecuting those who refuse to accept such a monumental travesty
would constitute insanity, not unlike a modern-style lynching, on
behalf of the French legislature.
The decision taken by the French Senate now comes as a stark contrast
to the 2001 resolution by the French National Assembly to recognize the
so-called "Armenian genocide". Such bigoted resolutions are insulting
towards the memory of over half a million Turkish civilians massacred
by Armenian armed formations in Eastern Anatolia which triggered the
Ottoman decision of temporary resettlement (TERESET) during World War
I. And I sincerely hope that some time in future, the French National
Assembly will also rescind its 2001 resolution as a deeply racist,
biased, dishonest and immoral piece of legislation.
What are the prospects for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation while
Armenians try to get the alleged "genocide" recognized in the world?
Attempts by Armenian political pressure groups in the diaspora to
characterize the temporary resettlement (TERESET) of Armenians by
the Ottoman authorities during World War I as an act of genocide not
only impede Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, but also strip Armenia
of its future. It is ironic that none of those vociferous supporters
of historical revisionism and growing Turcophobia in the Armenian
diaspora today seem willing to share the real difficulties of Armenian
society or to live in independent Armenia.
As far as Turkish-Armenian reconciliation goes, it is a complex process
which may take years. There is a tremendous amount of negativity
from Armenians towards Turkey and Turkish people which has been
fueled for decades by Armenian political interest groups. These
groups have exploited their own people to benefit themselves and
to ensure their existence through formulation of identity based on
anti-Turkism. Such ideology has no place in the 21st century, when
international relations are no longer defined by ethnic differences
or historical indoctrinations. This hatred must be alleviated, the
historical travesty must stop.
The Armenians, both in the diaspora and Armenia, must understand what
is meant by "Just Memory", a term that perhaps best describes the
policy of Turkey towards the Turkish-Armenian conflict. "Just Memory"
recognizes the suffering of all in the area and era, not just that
of the Armenians, and correctly points to the Armenian complicity
and responsibility in the turmoil and suffering. No narrative can be
taken seriously if it ignores the seven T's of the Turkish-Armenian
conflict: Armenian terrorism, turmoil (revolts), treason, territorial
demands, Turkish suffering at the hands of Armenians, TERESET and
Turcophobia. "Just Memory" tries to bring sides together based on
irrefutable facts, not divide or polarize them with partisan narratives
as in genocide claims.
Some people say that the Turkish side is not active enough, or at
least not as active as the Armenians, in providing the international
community with the real facts about 1915. Do you agree and, if so,
what should be done to change the situation?
I do agree with this claim to a certain extent, and there are
subjective reasons for that. About three million Turks perished
during World War I, including 1.1 million in Eastern Anatolia alone,
half a million of them at the hands of Armenian armed groups, such
as the "fedayeen" of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF -
Dashnaktsutyun). Over five million Turks were forcefully displaced
between 1821 and 1922 by ethno-religious conflicts from the Balkans to
the Caucasus. While the West ignored this enormous Turkish suffering
because of prejudice, Turks stayed silent about their own suffering,
mostly for cultural reasons. It is not in the Turkish character to cry,
scream, complain, beg, and otherwise show public lament in the face of
defeat. Turks, as in most other Asian cultures, grieve silently. But
this dignified silence of the Turks was deliberately misrepresented by
the Armenians as an admission of guilt for the alleged genocide. After
the successful conclusion of the war of independence in 1922, Turks,
full of hope, established a new republic and embarked upon an ambitious
course to rebuild their nation and country. It was time to forgive
and forget, establish a lasting peace, both at home and around the
world, work hard for a better future and maintain hope. While Turkey
cultivated hope and peace to become the 16th largest economy in the
world today, Armenians, preferring to cultivate hatred and vengeance,
created their current land-locked, poverty-stricken, violent and
corrupt society built on irredentist policies and in conflict with
all its neighbours.
Nevertheless, unlike Armenians, Turkish society does not suffer from
an identity crisis developed over self-imposed interpretations of
history. This in turn resulted in the rather soft attitude of Turks
towards Armenian allegations. That said, it might be educational to
point out that according to unverified sources, Armenians created
about 26,000 publications since 1915 compared to the Turkish side's
roughly 1,000, most of which were published in the last three decades.
Including the films, documentaries, political resolutions, and media
articles, one can clearly see that the Armenians have created an
industry around the alleged genocide, but they still cannot prevail.
Such is the power of truth. We have a profound proverb in Turkish
as you know: "Gunes balcikla sivanmaz" which means one cannot cover
the sun with mud. That's what Armenians have been trying to do since
1915 while the Turks were not looking. Now that the Turks are looking,
the Armenians can no longer be allowed to dupe the world.
So, the situation may have fundamentally changed in recent years,
mostly because of Turkey's growing influence in the world as well
as the increased determination of the Turkish diaspora to stand up
for its dignity and rights. Turkish-Americans today are no longer
willing to accept Armenian allegations but to confront them with
unbiased historical truth. When someone is armed with the truth,
no propaganda, political manipulation, intimidation, or harassment
can stop that person. That's how we, Turkish Americans, feel today.
May Turkey improve its relations with Armenia before progress in the
Karabakh settlement?
In 1991, Turkey was one of the first countries that recognized
Armenia's independence and established diplomatic relations with
Armenia. However, in April 1993, after the Armenian occupation of
Kalbajar District in Azerbaijan outside Nagorno-Karabakh, it became
apparent that Armenia is determined to pursue an outright expansionist
policy implemented by military aggression. Turkey ceased its diplomatic
relations and closed its border with Armenia invoking the violation
of international law which was, in fact, also voiced by the United
Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Armenian forces
withdraw from the occupied Kalbajar District. That 1993 decision by
the Turkish government was not simply a show of solidarity with Turkic
brethren as frequently misrepresented by Armenia and the West, but
that of a strong moral and legal stance against injustice, a stance
that has distinguished Turks for centuries.
In 2008, Turkey once more demonstrated its good will towards building
constructive, neighbourly relations with Armenia by enacting the
so-called soccer diplomacy towards Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.
After President Gul visited Yerevan in 2008, President Sargsyan came
to Bursa in 2009. Then Turkey signed the protocols with Armenia. There
are certain steps in response steps that must be taken by Armenia
to proceed with the protocols. The key to unlock the deadlock is a
demonstration of Armenia's willingness to become a good neighbour and
a constructive regional partner. Specifically, Armenia must cease
its occupation of Azerbaijani territories and allow for the return
of over 800,000 internally displaced Azerbaijani civilians to their
homes in Nagorno-Karabakh and seven other adjacent occupied districts
of Azerbaijan. Without that, reconciliation with Armenia would be an
undignified move for Turkey. Frankly, I cannot see any government in
Turkey, past, present or future, that can improve its relations with
Armenia before there is tangible progress in the Karabakh settlement
acceptable to Azerbaijan. The West must now hear Turkey's appeal
and start showing compassion for the 800,000 Azeri IDPs (internally
displaced persons) and reverse the Armenian aggression on Azerbaijani
soil.
What are the prospects for a Karabakh settlement?
It is clear today that Azerbaijan's influence in the South Caucasus
has grown tremendously and that Turkey is transforming from a regional
to a global power player, while Armenia is becoming increasingly
isolated and irrelevant in the regional integration processes. In this
situation, Armenia must make a choice between a path of gradually
losing its independence (while turning into a distant province of
Russia) and a path of cooperation and regional re-engagement. The
key to this choice is the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, the
return of Azerbaijani IDPs to their homes, and the re-establishment
of neighbourly relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And the ball of that choice is in Armenia's court now. Aggression
can no longer be allowed to stand in this day and age. The sooner
Armenia realizes this hard fact, the better it is for the region.
From: A. Papazian