Tweet
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso
June 15 2012
Taner Akçam: to talk about the genocide is good for Turkey
Maria Elena Murdaca | Ginevra
One of the first Turkish scholars to tackle the question of the
Armenian genocide in an open and forthright manner, Taner Akçam thinks
that overcoming the taboo of the genocide will also enable Turkey to
strengthen its own role as a regional power
`The road to peace and democracy in the Middle East passes through the
recognition of the Armenian genocide'. Peremptory in his statement,
Taner Akçam is one of the first Turkish scholars to tackle the
question of the Armenian genocide in an open and forthright manner, as
he tries to answer the question - why, a hundred years later, is
Turkey not able to confront its past and recognise the Armenian
genocide?
Taner Akçam, in Switzerland for a series of lectures on the theme, is
presented in Geneva by Vicken Cheterian, an Armenian scholar and
journalist. The symbolic significance of the scene is impressive.
There are many from the Geneva community of Armenians in the audience,
meeting to hear the Turkish professor who was forced to leave his own
country for having asked the State to deal with the question of the
Armenian genocide honestly.
His name, together with that of the winner of the Nobel Prize for
literature, Orhan Pamuk, and that of Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian
journalist assassinated precisely for his position on the genocide,
figure on a list of people considered a threat to national security.
He is a traitor because he says aloud what he thinks about a tragic
page from the past of his country.
Despite this, Professor Akçam was present at Dink's funeral, even
though at high risk for his own personal security and possibility of
arrest.
A pragmatic approach
Akçam's approach is scientific and pragmatic and this does not please
some of the Armenians in his audience. `He isn't doing it for us, he's
doing it for his own people', is heard murmured around the room in
comments of annoyance on Akçam's lectio magistralis, which showed the
link between the concept of Turkish national security and the taboo on
the Armenian genocide. For Turks, talking about the Armenian genocide
is the equivalent of putting their national security in danger. That
is why the sentence in 2007 against Dink's Armenian-Turkish newspaper
Agos, stated that the use of the term `genocide' could not be
considered as freedom of expression, which in certain cases can be
limited for questions of security and national interest. Denial of the
genocide is so strong that it has even been incorporated in the legal
system.
Akçam considers the idea that freedom of expression can be limited for
matters of national security to be the fruit of a mistaken concept of
political science and international relations, which opposes
Realpolitik to morality, holding that the two concepts are mutually
exclusive. This mistaken idea is far from being a Turkish peculiarity:
one only needs to look at what has been done in the United States in
the name of national security. The professor's thesis, on the
contrary, explains the need to include morality in Realpolitik, in
order to create truly safe and stable conditions. The morality, the
ethical approach to historical injustices - which would also include
the Armenian genocide - is not a threat to Realpolitik but its best
guarantee of security.
The origin of the denial
In his talk in Geneva, Taner Akçam dealt with the origin of the
Turkish State. He believes that the present concept of national
security, like the Turkish identity, has its roots in the break-up of
the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. One of the
reasons why the Turkish ruling class is so reluctant (to use a
euphemism) to face the question of the Armenian genocide openly, is
the historical continuity which ties it to the perpetrators of the
massacre. There has not been that clean break which took place, for
example, in Germany, between the Nazis who took the blame for the
Holocaust and the new, post-Nazi Germany. The modern state of Turkey
came about thanks to the direct action of the same people who dirtied
their hands with Armenian blood. Yet it was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk who
defined it `a shameful act'. What caused the Turkish nationalists to
do an about turn after they had begun to try the assassins?
In his attempt to recover as much terrain as possible, Atatürk
personally committed himself to show how serious the intent of the
Turkish nationalists was to deal with the Armenian genocide. Atatürk's
attitude had nothing to do with pietas. Legally prosecuting the
perpetrators of the Armenian genocide was his bargaining tool for
obtaining dignified treatment for a defeated power. This was a purely
political calculation. A calculation which was revealed to be an
error. The break-up of the Ottoman Empire, strongly urged mainly by
France and Great Britain, was dictated more by colonial interests than
by a desire for justice and the safeguarding of human rights. For this
reason the powers of the Entente were reluctant to make concessions.
Without suitable compensation - that is the recognition of the
territory as a whole - the condemnation of the perpetrators of the
genocide, in the eyes of the nationalists, lost its meaning.
The request
Then a request, almost an entreaty, from Taner Akçam to the Turkish
government: `Pick up from where your fathers stopped'. The
nationalists had not prosecuted the perpetrators of the genocide
exhaustively, but the massacre was not a taboo subject. In the state
archives, Akçam found traces of at least 63 distinct military trials
against those carrying out the genocide. In these trials the
witnesses' surnames were all Turkish. `If we look at the documents in
the state archives, we discover another history of Turkey. It is
important, for the Turks, that these people who bore witness be
honoured, that their names be known. We do not only have assassins,
but also heroes.'
The need to correct a mistake, an injustice, according to Akçam, is
directly connected to the need for stability in the region. The future
of Turkey as a leader in the Middle East, a role it aspires to,
especially after the changes in the past year, depends on the way it
is able to settle the question. Turkish denial poses serious problems
to security in the region. Armenians, Kurds and Arabs do not trust
Turkey. `If they deny it, it means they can do it again'.
Akçam's reasoning does not just refer to the Armenian question of last
century, but also to the more contemporary one of the Kurds: granting
equity and social justice to the Kurd minority would automatically
guarantee national security. Maintaining the opposite corresponds to
creating a self fulfilling prophecy. In short, recognising the
Armenian genocide is in Turkish interests. A non-democratic Turkey
creates more problems than it solves: it is not so much a moral
argument, as a practical one.
This shows the need for a new political elite which could lead to an
awakening and change of course. Politically, a change of guard is
indispensable. The founding fathers of the modern Turkish state are
stained with the blood of genocide and the political class they
engendered has held on to power for ninety years without a break. `How
could they say they have lied for ninety years? Even if they did it
would not work.' Developing a new national Turkish identity is
necessary for the recognition of the genocide, the essential crossing
point for a real democratization, not only of Turkey but of the whole
region, Armenia included.
In this light, entry to the European Union becomes crucial.
http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions-and-countries/Turkey/Taner-Akcam-to-talk-about-the-genocide-is-good-for-Turkey-118486
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
June 15 2012
Taner Akçam: to talk about the genocide is good for Turkey
Maria Elena Murdaca | Ginevra
One of the first Turkish scholars to tackle the question of the
Armenian genocide in an open and forthright manner, Taner Akçam thinks
that overcoming the taboo of the genocide will also enable Turkey to
strengthen its own role as a regional power
`The road to peace and democracy in the Middle East passes through the
recognition of the Armenian genocide'. Peremptory in his statement,
Taner Akçam is one of the first Turkish scholars to tackle the
question of the Armenian genocide in an open and forthright manner, as
he tries to answer the question - why, a hundred years later, is
Turkey not able to confront its past and recognise the Armenian
genocide?
Taner Akçam, in Switzerland for a series of lectures on the theme, is
presented in Geneva by Vicken Cheterian, an Armenian scholar and
journalist. The symbolic significance of the scene is impressive.
There are many from the Geneva community of Armenians in the audience,
meeting to hear the Turkish professor who was forced to leave his own
country for having asked the State to deal with the question of the
Armenian genocide honestly.
His name, together with that of the winner of the Nobel Prize for
literature, Orhan Pamuk, and that of Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian
journalist assassinated precisely for his position on the genocide,
figure on a list of people considered a threat to national security.
He is a traitor because he says aloud what he thinks about a tragic
page from the past of his country.
Despite this, Professor Akçam was present at Dink's funeral, even
though at high risk for his own personal security and possibility of
arrest.
A pragmatic approach
Akçam's approach is scientific and pragmatic and this does not please
some of the Armenians in his audience. `He isn't doing it for us, he's
doing it for his own people', is heard murmured around the room in
comments of annoyance on Akçam's lectio magistralis, which showed the
link between the concept of Turkish national security and the taboo on
the Armenian genocide. For Turks, talking about the Armenian genocide
is the equivalent of putting their national security in danger. That
is why the sentence in 2007 against Dink's Armenian-Turkish newspaper
Agos, stated that the use of the term `genocide' could not be
considered as freedom of expression, which in certain cases can be
limited for questions of security and national interest. Denial of the
genocide is so strong that it has even been incorporated in the legal
system.
Akçam considers the idea that freedom of expression can be limited for
matters of national security to be the fruit of a mistaken concept of
political science and international relations, which opposes
Realpolitik to morality, holding that the two concepts are mutually
exclusive. This mistaken idea is far from being a Turkish peculiarity:
one only needs to look at what has been done in the United States in
the name of national security. The professor's thesis, on the
contrary, explains the need to include morality in Realpolitik, in
order to create truly safe and stable conditions. The morality, the
ethical approach to historical injustices - which would also include
the Armenian genocide - is not a threat to Realpolitik but its best
guarantee of security.
The origin of the denial
In his talk in Geneva, Taner Akçam dealt with the origin of the
Turkish State. He believes that the present concept of national
security, like the Turkish identity, has its roots in the break-up of
the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. One of the
reasons why the Turkish ruling class is so reluctant (to use a
euphemism) to face the question of the Armenian genocide openly, is
the historical continuity which ties it to the perpetrators of the
massacre. There has not been that clean break which took place, for
example, in Germany, between the Nazis who took the blame for the
Holocaust and the new, post-Nazi Germany. The modern state of Turkey
came about thanks to the direct action of the same people who dirtied
their hands with Armenian blood. Yet it was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk who
defined it `a shameful act'. What caused the Turkish nationalists to
do an about turn after they had begun to try the assassins?
In his attempt to recover as much terrain as possible, Atatürk
personally committed himself to show how serious the intent of the
Turkish nationalists was to deal with the Armenian genocide. Atatürk's
attitude had nothing to do with pietas. Legally prosecuting the
perpetrators of the Armenian genocide was his bargaining tool for
obtaining dignified treatment for a defeated power. This was a purely
political calculation. A calculation which was revealed to be an
error. The break-up of the Ottoman Empire, strongly urged mainly by
France and Great Britain, was dictated more by colonial interests than
by a desire for justice and the safeguarding of human rights. For this
reason the powers of the Entente were reluctant to make concessions.
Without suitable compensation - that is the recognition of the
territory as a whole - the condemnation of the perpetrators of the
genocide, in the eyes of the nationalists, lost its meaning.
The request
Then a request, almost an entreaty, from Taner Akçam to the Turkish
government: `Pick up from where your fathers stopped'. The
nationalists had not prosecuted the perpetrators of the genocide
exhaustively, but the massacre was not a taboo subject. In the state
archives, Akçam found traces of at least 63 distinct military trials
against those carrying out the genocide. In these trials the
witnesses' surnames were all Turkish. `If we look at the documents in
the state archives, we discover another history of Turkey. It is
important, for the Turks, that these people who bore witness be
honoured, that their names be known. We do not only have assassins,
but also heroes.'
The need to correct a mistake, an injustice, according to Akçam, is
directly connected to the need for stability in the region. The future
of Turkey as a leader in the Middle East, a role it aspires to,
especially after the changes in the past year, depends on the way it
is able to settle the question. Turkish denial poses serious problems
to security in the region. Armenians, Kurds and Arabs do not trust
Turkey. `If they deny it, it means they can do it again'.
Akçam's reasoning does not just refer to the Armenian question of last
century, but also to the more contemporary one of the Kurds: granting
equity and social justice to the Kurd minority would automatically
guarantee national security. Maintaining the opposite corresponds to
creating a self fulfilling prophecy. In short, recognising the
Armenian genocide is in Turkish interests. A non-democratic Turkey
creates more problems than it solves: it is not so much a moral
argument, as a practical one.
This shows the need for a new political elite which could lead to an
awakening and change of course. Politically, a change of guard is
indispensable. The founding fathers of the modern Turkish state are
stained with the blood of genocide and the political class they
engendered has held on to power for ninety years without a break. `How
could they say they have lied for ninety years? Even if they did it
would not work.' Developing a new national Turkish identity is
necessary for the recognition of the genocide, the essential crossing
point for a real democratization, not only of Turkey but of the whole
region, Armenia included.
In this light, entry to the European Union becomes crucial.
http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions-and-countries/Turkey/Taner-Akcam-to-talk-about-the-genocide-is-good-for-Turkey-118486
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress