Tweet
SACRIFICING GOOD SENSE ON THE ALTAR OF IDENTITY - TURKISH ARMENIANS AT A GLANCE
by Husrev Tabak
Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 19 2012
The tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia rose once again early
this month due to the deadly armed clashes along the border. The
confrontation has intensified and the number of fatalities reached
nine. Consequently, the possibility of further escalation of the
crisis causes anxiety within the international community and among
neighboring countries. However, our attention is confined to the way
the conflict is perceived and reported on by transnational Armenian
diaspora communities aside from the international dimension of the
dispute. We particularly place emphasis on the reflections of conflict
among the Turkish Armenians and in their discourse regarding identity.
Where do the Turkish Armenians locate themselves within the
Armenian-Azerbaijani military dispute? Would it be biased to think
that Turkish Armenians naturally and exogenously align themselves with
Armenia at all costs and in any given circumstances? Diaspora studies
would suggest that their Armenianness may compel or oblige them to
take sides in favor of the political means and ends of the homeland
(referring to Armenia here). This might be true for particularly the
nationalist parties within the broader diasporic community. However,
it is expected that ideology, principles, or simply good sense would
exert influence on the conclusion a member of the diaspora has drawn
on the issues related to the homeland. Nonetheless, our expectation
is not met when we start probing why liberal, socialist, or social
democratic Armenians in Turkey acquire a single-sided and partial
(therefore nationalistic) discourse in the latent Azerbaijan-Armenia
dispute. The recent military clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan
have presented a question as to the position taken by the Turkish
Armenians (especially of those identified as socialist and democratic).
Among the broader Armenian diaspora, the nationalist or conservative
responses to the incidents put blame on Azerbaijan for committing an
outrageous act through border transgressions and consequently murdering
Armenian soldiers. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)
for instance, reports the one incident as Azerbaijani aggression,
an Azerbaijani attack against Armenia, outrage by Azerbaijan's
military, or a brazen attack (Armenian weekly, June 6, 2012). Their
point of departure is nationalism-driven and consistent in its own
rights. Principally, Agos would embrace a relatively impartial and
unbiased discourse that differs from the ANCA for instance. We will
see below whether it does.
Differing from mainstream media, the Turkish Armenians' leading weekly
paper Agos comes forth here as an influential social-democratic and
to a certain extent socialist voice of a minority community. Its
standpoint reflects ideological and political consistency most
of the time. Historically, the paper strives to democratically
mobilize Turkish citizens (regardless of their ethnic origin)
to face the historical incidents of 1915. The weekly paper also
favors and promotes an anti-racist, pluralist, multicultural,
and democratic society that would endow the country with societal
accord and tolerance through which peaceful co-existence within the
country would be fulfilled. Such a political leaning indeed clearly
serves to the strengthening of social harmony. Nonetheless, when the
issues come to Armenia and its relations with the neighboring states,
unexpectedly, the paper ends up with the same conclusions as the rest
of the Armenian diaspora over the world. Such a controversy deserves
highlighting and thorough discussion. The recent Azerbaijan-Armenia
armed clashes evidently confirm this attitude of Agos.
Initially, we should note that the Turkish Armenian diaspora,
particularly those who embrace democratic discourse, could pave the
way to Azerbaijan-Armenia and Turkey-Armenia rapprochements. In line
with this, it was expected that the socialist and democratic Armenians
in Turkey would keep their feet on the ground and write impartial news
in order not to let the temporal and fallacious disputes distract from
the peace efforts and possibilities. In contrast to the requirements
of its ideological, political, and social position, Agos releases news
that is discursively backing and legitimizing the Armenian nationalist
claims about the armed conflict while denouncing Azerbaijan. Agos, in
this sense (from its website), published news regarding the dispute
on June 4,5,6, and 8, all of which converges on an argument that
Azerbaijan is the side that started the war and Armenian forces
managed to repulse the attacking side after unfortunately taking
some casualties. The narration and depiction of the incident and the
articulated political language demonstrate that Agos, a prominent
voice of Turkish Armenians, holds an ideological leaning similar
to the world-wide Armenian diaspora on the issues related to the
homeland. This supportive leaning spans from the territorial claims
of Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia's shameful denial of the
Khojali massacre.
Editor-in-chief of Agos after Hrant Dink Rober Koptas' editorial on
the "Justice for Khojali Meeting" in Istanbul (February 23, 2012)
reflects a similar stance. He poses the question of whether "those who
attended to the meeting today really commemorate the innocent people?
Or do they try to prevent the remembrance of other innocent dead
people?" Simply by reversing his argument we can claim that through
the use of the shameful 1915 incidents, he endeavors to silence the
articulation of Khojali massacre. In fact whichever way we look at
it, there is no room for a democratic or impartial bearing in Agos's
attitude toward the disputed issues surrounding Armenia, which in
turn prevents Agos from consistently grasping a democratic voice.
Apparently, when Armenia is in question the identity discourse prevails
among others in Agos weekly.
This is what we can call sacrificing good sense on the altar of
identity. Turkish Armenians' declaration of their ethnic identity as
Armenian in Turkey is yet to be adequate. In order to enhance and
highlight their identity, they feel it necessary to support and be
on the side of Armenia in making "national claims." Agos does so,
albeit its ideological stance against nationalism and nationalist
discourse in normal occasions.
Theoretically speaking, for Agos the salience of its identity depends
on the performative constitution of its difference (Campbell, 1993:8).
That means Agos, via standing on the side of Armenia, places
emphasis on its difference from Turkey's national attitudes toward the
Azerbaijan-Armenia dispute. This in fact sharpens the Armenian identity
in Turkey. Additionally, the way Agos draws the boundaries of being an
Armenian (regardless of the ideological difference backing Armenia's
national claims) presupposes that group membership requires sharing
assumptions regarding Armenia. Finally, since in the course of time
identity becomes a norm that governs the future conduct of relations
(ibid: 10), as long as they do not change the common understanding
of being an Armenian, it would be cogent to predict that Agos will
keep favoring Armenia in the future at all costs.
Consequently, unless Agos gives up favoring Armenian nationalism
vis-a-vis its ideological leaning, the Turkish Armenians will keep
sacrificing good sense on the altar of a vague identity.
Works cited: Campbell, David (1993) Writing Security - United States
Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
* Husrev Tabak is a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester
and the deputy director of CESRAN (Centre for Strategic Research
and Analysis).
www.cesran.org
The author is indebted to Dr. Ali Balci of Sakarya University for
his encouraging remarks.
by Husrev Tabak
Journal of Turkish Weekly
June 19 2012
The tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia rose once again early
this month due to the deadly armed clashes along the border. The
confrontation has intensified and the number of fatalities reached
nine. Consequently, the possibility of further escalation of the
crisis causes anxiety within the international community and among
neighboring countries. However, our attention is confined to the way
the conflict is perceived and reported on by transnational Armenian
diaspora communities aside from the international dimension of the
dispute. We particularly place emphasis on the reflections of conflict
among the Turkish Armenians and in their discourse regarding identity.
Where do the Turkish Armenians locate themselves within the
Armenian-Azerbaijani military dispute? Would it be biased to think
that Turkish Armenians naturally and exogenously align themselves with
Armenia at all costs and in any given circumstances? Diaspora studies
would suggest that their Armenianness may compel or oblige them to
take sides in favor of the political means and ends of the homeland
(referring to Armenia here). This might be true for particularly the
nationalist parties within the broader diasporic community. However,
it is expected that ideology, principles, or simply good sense would
exert influence on the conclusion a member of the diaspora has drawn
on the issues related to the homeland. Nonetheless, our expectation
is not met when we start probing why liberal, socialist, or social
democratic Armenians in Turkey acquire a single-sided and partial
(therefore nationalistic) discourse in the latent Azerbaijan-Armenia
dispute. The recent military clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan
have presented a question as to the position taken by the Turkish
Armenians (especially of those identified as socialist and democratic).
Among the broader Armenian diaspora, the nationalist or conservative
responses to the incidents put blame on Azerbaijan for committing an
outrageous act through border transgressions and consequently murdering
Armenian soldiers. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)
for instance, reports the one incident as Azerbaijani aggression,
an Azerbaijani attack against Armenia, outrage by Azerbaijan's
military, or a brazen attack (Armenian weekly, June 6, 2012). Their
point of departure is nationalism-driven and consistent in its own
rights. Principally, Agos would embrace a relatively impartial and
unbiased discourse that differs from the ANCA for instance. We will
see below whether it does.
Differing from mainstream media, the Turkish Armenians' leading weekly
paper Agos comes forth here as an influential social-democratic and
to a certain extent socialist voice of a minority community. Its
standpoint reflects ideological and political consistency most
of the time. Historically, the paper strives to democratically
mobilize Turkish citizens (regardless of their ethnic origin)
to face the historical incidents of 1915. The weekly paper also
favors and promotes an anti-racist, pluralist, multicultural,
and democratic society that would endow the country with societal
accord and tolerance through which peaceful co-existence within the
country would be fulfilled. Such a political leaning indeed clearly
serves to the strengthening of social harmony. Nonetheless, when the
issues come to Armenia and its relations with the neighboring states,
unexpectedly, the paper ends up with the same conclusions as the rest
of the Armenian diaspora over the world. Such a controversy deserves
highlighting and thorough discussion. The recent Azerbaijan-Armenia
armed clashes evidently confirm this attitude of Agos.
Initially, we should note that the Turkish Armenian diaspora,
particularly those who embrace democratic discourse, could pave the
way to Azerbaijan-Armenia and Turkey-Armenia rapprochements. In line
with this, it was expected that the socialist and democratic Armenians
in Turkey would keep their feet on the ground and write impartial news
in order not to let the temporal and fallacious disputes distract from
the peace efforts and possibilities. In contrast to the requirements
of its ideological, political, and social position, Agos releases news
that is discursively backing and legitimizing the Armenian nationalist
claims about the armed conflict while denouncing Azerbaijan. Agos, in
this sense (from its website), published news regarding the dispute
on June 4,5,6, and 8, all of which converges on an argument that
Azerbaijan is the side that started the war and Armenian forces
managed to repulse the attacking side after unfortunately taking
some casualties. The narration and depiction of the incident and the
articulated political language demonstrate that Agos, a prominent
voice of Turkish Armenians, holds an ideological leaning similar
to the world-wide Armenian diaspora on the issues related to the
homeland. This supportive leaning spans from the territorial claims
of Armenia on Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia's shameful denial of the
Khojali massacre.
Editor-in-chief of Agos after Hrant Dink Rober Koptas' editorial on
the "Justice for Khojali Meeting" in Istanbul (February 23, 2012)
reflects a similar stance. He poses the question of whether "those who
attended to the meeting today really commemorate the innocent people?
Or do they try to prevent the remembrance of other innocent dead
people?" Simply by reversing his argument we can claim that through
the use of the shameful 1915 incidents, he endeavors to silence the
articulation of Khojali massacre. In fact whichever way we look at
it, there is no room for a democratic or impartial bearing in Agos's
attitude toward the disputed issues surrounding Armenia, which in
turn prevents Agos from consistently grasping a democratic voice.
Apparently, when Armenia is in question the identity discourse prevails
among others in Agos weekly.
This is what we can call sacrificing good sense on the altar of
identity. Turkish Armenians' declaration of their ethnic identity as
Armenian in Turkey is yet to be adequate. In order to enhance and
highlight their identity, they feel it necessary to support and be
on the side of Armenia in making "national claims." Agos does so,
albeit its ideological stance against nationalism and nationalist
discourse in normal occasions.
Theoretically speaking, for Agos the salience of its identity depends
on the performative constitution of its difference (Campbell, 1993:8).
That means Agos, via standing on the side of Armenia, places
emphasis on its difference from Turkey's national attitudes toward the
Azerbaijan-Armenia dispute. This in fact sharpens the Armenian identity
in Turkey. Additionally, the way Agos draws the boundaries of being an
Armenian (regardless of the ideological difference backing Armenia's
national claims) presupposes that group membership requires sharing
assumptions regarding Armenia. Finally, since in the course of time
identity becomes a norm that governs the future conduct of relations
(ibid: 10), as long as they do not change the common understanding
of being an Armenian, it would be cogent to predict that Agos will
keep favoring Armenia in the future at all costs.
Consequently, unless Agos gives up favoring Armenian nationalism
vis-a-vis its ideological leaning, the Turkish Armenians will keep
sacrificing good sense on the altar of a vague identity.
Works cited: Campbell, David (1993) Writing Security - United States
Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
* Husrev Tabak is a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester
and the deputy director of CESRAN (Centre for Strategic Research
and Analysis).
www.cesran.org
The author is indebted to Dr. Ali Balci of Sakarya University for
his encouraging remarks.