Tweet
FRANCE, DIASPORA AND MISSED OPPORTUNITY
MARKAR ESAYAN
Today's Zaman
Feb 3 2012
Turkey
I will resume from where I left off in my last column.
The Hrant Dink murder is an important milestone and turning point
because it has shown the desire and eagerness of a nation that has
stayed emotionally polarized with regard to reunification. Failure
to ensure the survival of a peaceful, dignified, democratic
Anatolian-Armenian relationship has been heavy baggage for everybody
in this country. Dink, who lay on the ground with his worn shoes,
was like the addition of a dark past. He and his death showed us
that there is a great price for failing to confront the past and to
effectively deal with the coup instigators and the rule of murderers.
The people who attended Dinkâ~@~Ys funeral and the remembrance ceremony
held on Jan. 19, 2012, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of
his murder showed that they were unwilling to live in such a country.
These demonstrations served as visible popular support for dealing
with the poisonous past started by the leaders of the Committee of
Union and Progress (CUP) in a raid in 1913. Everybody is now aware
that partial democratization keeps them weak and that demands raised
in reference to this partial democratization lead to them being
manipulated. In other words, exclusive reference by an Armenian,
a Kurd or a Muslim to his or her own rights refers to a state of
weakness that the oligarchy is in fact looking for. In this way,
these demands may be presented to the rest of the nation as a threat.
However, the consolidation of power for a better democracy based on
universal standards and the protection of the rights of different
groups is far more influential. During the first term of the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party), the impact of the EU membership
bid was more visible. Therefore, the EU membership bid allowed us to
make progress without considering the prejudices of and confrontation
between different social groups. In other words, in the struggle to
address the headscarf problem of religious people, there was no need
for a separate strategy for the rights of the Alevis, the abolishment
of classes on religion or the reopening of the Halki Seminary.
Likewise, some ordinary Alevis who were fighting for their rights were
not uncomfortable with the contradiction of opposing the headscarf and
supporting the injustice in conjunction with the coefficient problem
in university admission. A religious party was in power and it was
making some efforts, but the EU was already requesting these reforms.
The reforms that the AK Party introduced did not bother the Muslims
because of assurances from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ~_an. In
other words, the Muslims were in power and confident during this
process and, for this reason, they adopted a progressive stance. The
motor behind this process since 2002 has been this group of people
anyway.
The Dink murder was committed at such a juncture. The Armenian
story has revealed history with all its baggage, and particularly
the 1915 massacres, which I call founding trauma, as well as their
perpetrators. Those who perpetrated the 1915 massacres were also
behind the murders of İskilipli Atıf Hoca and Cavit Bey, the
establishment of martial courts, the introduction of the Wealth
Tax, the commission of the Sept. 6-7, 1955 pogroms, the execution
of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, the organization of the massacres
before the Sept. 12, 1980 coup, laying the ground for the Feb. 28,
1997 coup and the killing of a number of Kurds. This was the method
used to govern the state. Despite the collapse of the Ottoman state
and the creation of the republican regime, Turkey has been ruled by a
mentality introduced by those who staged a coup in 1913. I am talking
about a century -- I am talking about the tradition of a gang that
has remained opposed to the people and democracy.
Is it possible to argue that this century was unsuccessful? What was
successful? It was the legitimization of methods advanced by the CUP
mindset. True, most probably, the Sivas Madımak massacre was carried
out by a deep state organization. However, how would we explain the
â~@~\Muslimâ~@~] people who gathered around the hotel asking for
the building to be set on fire? By deception alone? If we do this,
would we not be the same as those who follow a Kemalist mentality,
which does not consider the people mature enough? True, the Alevis
still support an antidemocratic stance on the headscarf issue, but
didnâ~@~Yt religious people indirectly support the stateâ~@~Ys dirty
policies and war through nationalism?
The Dink murder stands right there. True, I gave a definition of
an organization that seeks to topple the AK Party government. But
what would you say about the bureaucrats of the same government who
ignored extensive information about a potential murder? How would
you explain the protection of these bureaucrats over the past five
years? How would you explain the morality of the police officers who
ensured that the murderer posed in front of the Turkish flag at the
Samsun Police Department? It is hard to get concrete results without
realizing that this poisonous century created vicious ethics.
In my last column, I made mention of a speech I delivered at the
event in Paris held to remember Hrant Dink. I found the attitude of
the diaspora -- by diaspora I mean all people, and their children,
who left Turkey -- pretty grave. These are mostly people who migrated
out of fear, as well as for their children. They tend to oppose
any constructive or positive remarks about Turkey. I cannot make
generalizations, of course, but most of them hold this attitude. The
day they left Turkey is frozen in time for them. That they were not
understood undermined their efforts to understand. It is as if they
are living in the Turkey of the 1980s. The Armenians, leftists, Kurds
and Alevis are all furious with Turkey because they were victimized
and want justice.
Expectation of justice
A point that needs to be underlined is that there is an expectation
of justice. Regardless of what is happening, they believe Turkey
will never change. They have waited for the delivery of justice
for a century. This has sharpened their expectations and converted
an anticipation of justice into a request for punishment. The
fact that a religious party is in power has made things even more
complicated. The AK Partyâ~@~Ys reluctance over the last two years
to introduce further reforms -- its reluctance to address growing
concerns over authoritarian tendencies and Turkeyâ~@~Ys conviction
by the European court -- reinforce this judgment.
I observed in the Armenians that the feelings associated with
the peace and dialogue and the extensive support of thousands of
people for Dink after his murder are in decline in the aftermath of
Turkeyâ~@~Ys excessive reaction to the genocide denial bill adopted
by the French Senate. It is even known that the illegal demonstration
held outside the Senate was organized by Turkey. This created an
impression among many Armenians that the CUP was still haunting them
in their new homeland.
And they are not actually wrong, because the unreasonable reaction
by Turkey to the genocide bill reminds us of the old Turkey. A prime
minister who offered an apology for the Dersim massacre has not made
a single compassionate remark about 1915 yet; he has not given any
insight on a different approach to this matter. Collective denial of
the 1915 events through strong statements and an extremely defensive
attitude has undermined the AK Partyâ~@~Ys image as a promoter of
change here.
However, Turkey could have relied on a more compassionate discourse
for the 1915 incidents without compromising its official position on
the legal definition of genocide -- it would not actually matter even
if the events are defined as genocide, considering they had nothing
to do with Turkey. To do this, the prime minister could have moved
slightly away from the position of people like Å~^ükrü ElekdaÄ~_
and more towards the standpoint of constructive figures like Dink.
Still, the cautious approach of the prime minister after the adoption
of the bill by the French Senate raises hopes. The referral of the
bill to the Constitutional Council is of course an important factor
in this. As 2015 approaches, the Armenian problem and 1915 will be
more frequently discussed. The denial bill adopted in France was
a good opportunity for a paradigm shift, but this opportunity was
missed. I hope such discussions will help similar future opportunities
to be seized.
From: Baghdasarian
MARKAR ESAYAN
Today's Zaman
Feb 3 2012
Turkey
I will resume from where I left off in my last column.
The Hrant Dink murder is an important milestone and turning point
because it has shown the desire and eagerness of a nation that has
stayed emotionally polarized with regard to reunification. Failure
to ensure the survival of a peaceful, dignified, democratic
Anatolian-Armenian relationship has been heavy baggage for everybody
in this country. Dink, who lay on the ground with his worn shoes,
was like the addition of a dark past. He and his death showed us
that there is a great price for failing to confront the past and to
effectively deal with the coup instigators and the rule of murderers.
The people who attended Dinkâ~@~Ys funeral and the remembrance ceremony
held on Jan. 19, 2012, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of
his murder showed that they were unwilling to live in such a country.
These demonstrations served as visible popular support for dealing
with the poisonous past started by the leaders of the Committee of
Union and Progress (CUP) in a raid in 1913. Everybody is now aware
that partial democratization keeps them weak and that demands raised
in reference to this partial democratization lead to them being
manipulated. In other words, exclusive reference by an Armenian,
a Kurd or a Muslim to his or her own rights refers to a state of
weakness that the oligarchy is in fact looking for. In this way,
these demands may be presented to the rest of the nation as a threat.
However, the consolidation of power for a better democracy based on
universal standards and the protection of the rights of different
groups is far more influential. During the first term of the Justice
and Development Party (AK Party), the impact of the EU membership
bid was more visible. Therefore, the EU membership bid allowed us to
make progress without considering the prejudices of and confrontation
between different social groups. In other words, in the struggle to
address the headscarf problem of religious people, there was no need
for a separate strategy for the rights of the Alevis, the abolishment
of classes on religion or the reopening of the Halki Seminary.
Likewise, some ordinary Alevis who were fighting for their rights were
not uncomfortable with the contradiction of opposing the headscarf and
supporting the injustice in conjunction with the coefficient problem
in university admission. A religious party was in power and it was
making some efforts, but the EU was already requesting these reforms.
The reforms that the AK Party introduced did not bother the Muslims
because of assurances from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ~_an. In
other words, the Muslims were in power and confident during this
process and, for this reason, they adopted a progressive stance. The
motor behind this process since 2002 has been this group of people
anyway.
The Dink murder was committed at such a juncture. The Armenian
story has revealed history with all its baggage, and particularly
the 1915 massacres, which I call founding trauma, as well as their
perpetrators. Those who perpetrated the 1915 massacres were also
behind the murders of İskilipli Atıf Hoca and Cavit Bey, the
establishment of martial courts, the introduction of the Wealth
Tax, the commission of the Sept. 6-7, 1955 pogroms, the execution
of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, the organization of the massacres
before the Sept. 12, 1980 coup, laying the ground for the Feb. 28,
1997 coup and the killing of a number of Kurds. This was the method
used to govern the state. Despite the collapse of the Ottoman state
and the creation of the republican regime, Turkey has been ruled by a
mentality introduced by those who staged a coup in 1913. I am talking
about a century -- I am talking about the tradition of a gang that
has remained opposed to the people and democracy.
Is it possible to argue that this century was unsuccessful? What was
successful? It was the legitimization of methods advanced by the CUP
mindset. True, most probably, the Sivas Madımak massacre was carried
out by a deep state organization. However, how would we explain the
â~@~\Muslimâ~@~] people who gathered around the hotel asking for
the building to be set on fire? By deception alone? If we do this,
would we not be the same as those who follow a Kemalist mentality,
which does not consider the people mature enough? True, the Alevis
still support an antidemocratic stance on the headscarf issue, but
didnâ~@~Yt religious people indirectly support the stateâ~@~Ys dirty
policies and war through nationalism?
The Dink murder stands right there. True, I gave a definition of
an organization that seeks to topple the AK Party government. But
what would you say about the bureaucrats of the same government who
ignored extensive information about a potential murder? How would
you explain the protection of these bureaucrats over the past five
years? How would you explain the morality of the police officers who
ensured that the murderer posed in front of the Turkish flag at the
Samsun Police Department? It is hard to get concrete results without
realizing that this poisonous century created vicious ethics.
In my last column, I made mention of a speech I delivered at the
event in Paris held to remember Hrant Dink. I found the attitude of
the diaspora -- by diaspora I mean all people, and their children,
who left Turkey -- pretty grave. These are mostly people who migrated
out of fear, as well as for their children. They tend to oppose
any constructive or positive remarks about Turkey. I cannot make
generalizations, of course, but most of them hold this attitude. The
day they left Turkey is frozen in time for them. That they were not
understood undermined their efforts to understand. It is as if they
are living in the Turkey of the 1980s. The Armenians, leftists, Kurds
and Alevis are all furious with Turkey because they were victimized
and want justice.
Expectation of justice
A point that needs to be underlined is that there is an expectation
of justice. Regardless of what is happening, they believe Turkey
will never change. They have waited for the delivery of justice
for a century. This has sharpened their expectations and converted
an anticipation of justice into a request for punishment. The
fact that a religious party is in power has made things even more
complicated. The AK Partyâ~@~Ys reluctance over the last two years
to introduce further reforms -- its reluctance to address growing
concerns over authoritarian tendencies and Turkeyâ~@~Ys conviction
by the European court -- reinforce this judgment.
I observed in the Armenians that the feelings associated with
the peace and dialogue and the extensive support of thousands of
people for Dink after his murder are in decline in the aftermath of
Turkeyâ~@~Ys excessive reaction to the genocide denial bill adopted
by the French Senate. It is even known that the illegal demonstration
held outside the Senate was organized by Turkey. This created an
impression among many Armenians that the CUP was still haunting them
in their new homeland.
And they are not actually wrong, because the unreasonable reaction
by Turkey to the genocide bill reminds us of the old Turkey. A prime
minister who offered an apology for the Dersim massacre has not made
a single compassionate remark about 1915 yet; he has not given any
insight on a different approach to this matter. Collective denial of
the 1915 events through strong statements and an extremely defensive
attitude has undermined the AK Partyâ~@~Ys image as a promoter of
change here.
However, Turkey could have relied on a more compassionate discourse
for the 1915 incidents without compromising its official position on
the legal definition of genocide -- it would not actually matter even
if the events are defined as genocide, considering they had nothing
to do with Turkey. To do this, the prime minister could have moved
slightly away from the position of people like Å~^ükrü ElekdaÄ~_
and more towards the standpoint of constructive figures like Dink.
Still, the cautious approach of the prime minister after the adoption
of the bill by the French Senate raises hopes. The referral of the
bill to the Constitutional Council is of course an important factor
in this. As 2015 approaches, the Armenian problem and 1915 will be
more frequently discussed. The denial bill adopted in France was
a good opportunity for a paradigm shift, but this opportunity was
missed. I hope such discussions will help similar future opportunities
to be seized.
From: Baghdasarian