Tweet
YEGPARIAN: RECONCILIATION
By Garen Yegparian // December 18, 2013 in Garen Yegparian
Reading the phrase "hell-bent on Armenian-Turkish reconciliation" at
the end of Harut Sassounian's most recent column triggered a profound
revulsion coupled with a realization.
Harut did nothing wrong. He was just referring to the losers who have
raised the "reconciliation" flag and paraded it around in Armenian
settings every chance they get. This plays right into Turks hands.
How?
"Reconciliation" is such a "good thing," right? Who could be against
something that Nelson Mandela (cited in Hrant Apovian's "What Will
the Armenian Genocide Centennial Accomplish?") defined as "working
together to correct the legacy of past injustice" (note this is from
the guy who practically invented the whole notion of socio-political
reconciliation).
But that takes two willing, non-duplicitous, equitably motivated,
sides. Not one sincere side and another side cynically abusing the
opportunity to get out of its obligations to humanity and its victims.
I realized that much of the push is coming from U.S. sources,
with the Turks availing themselves of the escape route provided by
"reCONciliation." And that's what it is in our case-a con, a scam, a
flimflam, a deceit, a ruse, etc., ad nauseam. Those whose experience
is defined by life in the Americas, especially the U.S., are used to
thinking in terms of "we must all get along, we're all different,
but we're in this together," because all but the Native Americans
are recent arrivals to the those continents.
In the Armenian case, you have a native population, essentially
totally extirpated from its home, and the murderous invader wanting
to escape responsibility. That's reCONciliation as conceived by the
Turkish government.
This approach is evident in Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's
recent characterization of the deportation portion of the genocide as
"inhumane," and attributing it to the Ottoman Empire. He's doing two
things. He's playing "decent" by recognizing the fundamentally wrong
nature of the deportations. At the same time, he's not recognizing
that the deportation happened in the context of committing genocide.
Thus, he strengthens Turkey's position in arguing that reCONciliation
should happen without recognition of the genocide, reparations,
or restoration of Wilsonian Armenia to its rightful owners.
In this, he's supported by sectors of society in Turkey. One Aybars
Gorgulu, program officer at the Foreign Policy Program of the Turkish
Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), a Turkish think-tank,
asserts, "Armenian diaspora needs to see the change in Turks' approach
to 1915."
Great, so, we see the change, then what? If the terminus of the
Armeno-Turkish relationship is a journey of a million miles, then
we've advanced maybe 10 miles. That's better than the one mile of
just a decade ago, but it is still insignificant in the overall scheme
of things.
By the way, TESEV, on its own website reports it "organized a
study trip in the Armenian capital Yerevan on 4-6 June, 2012...[for]
academics, students, media, and civil society representatives who have
been actively involved in...discussing Turkish-Armenian relations
since 2010 but never been to Armenia before." Without having the
benefit of following, personally, the participants' activities in
Yerevan, my instinctive reaction is that this just provided grist
for the reCONciliation mill.
The fact that we have made some progress is a testament to the value of
the pressure we have applied to Turkey. Much more is needed. This does
not mean, and I say this emphatically, that we should not engage our
adversaries. Quite the contrary, we should speak with them, and openly,
this way neither side can accuse the other of misrepresenting the
content of any contacts. Interestingly, my article from two weeks ago,
"Turks Must Be Smoking Their Own Poppies" has inadvertently followed
this two-step approach: The "pressure" came from pointing out the flaws
in a Turkish academician's article. The "engage" part arose with that
author wanting to meet when she's in the Los Angeles area next.
Engagement is not of the sort that Davutoglu revealed during his
trip to Yerevan-that he had been meeting with Armenians on the sly
wherever he traveled. That's just a tactic to enable reCONciliation.
Please, from now on, whenever we hear "reCONciliation" being brandished
as the ultimate good and goal in relations with our denialist neighbor,
let's recognize it for the vacuous blather it represents at this
point in our million-mile journey.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/12/18/yegparian-reconciliation/
By Garen Yegparian // December 18, 2013 in Garen Yegparian
Reading the phrase "hell-bent on Armenian-Turkish reconciliation" at
the end of Harut Sassounian's most recent column triggered a profound
revulsion coupled with a realization.
Harut did nothing wrong. He was just referring to the losers who have
raised the "reconciliation" flag and paraded it around in Armenian
settings every chance they get. This plays right into Turks hands.
How?
"Reconciliation" is such a "good thing," right? Who could be against
something that Nelson Mandela (cited in Hrant Apovian's "What Will
the Armenian Genocide Centennial Accomplish?") defined as "working
together to correct the legacy of past injustice" (note this is from
the guy who practically invented the whole notion of socio-political
reconciliation).
But that takes two willing, non-duplicitous, equitably motivated,
sides. Not one sincere side and another side cynically abusing the
opportunity to get out of its obligations to humanity and its victims.
I realized that much of the push is coming from U.S. sources,
with the Turks availing themselves of the escape route provided by
"reCONciliation." And that's what it is in our case-a con, a scam, a
flimflam, a deceit, a ruse, etc., ad nauseam. Those whose experience
is defined by life in the Americas, especially the U.S., are used to
thinking in terms of "we must all get along, we're all different,
but we're in this together," because all but the Native Americans
are recent arrivals to the those continents.
In the Armenian case, you have a native population, essentially
totally extirpated from its home, and the murderous invader wanting
to escape responsibility. That's reCONciliation as conceived by the
Turkish government.
This approach is evident in Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's
recent characterization of the deportation portion of the genocide as
"inhumane," and attributing it to the Ottoman Empire. He's doing two
things. He's playing "decent" by recognizing the fundamentally wrong
nature of the deportations. At the same time, he's not recognizing
that the deportation happened in the context of committing genocide.
Thus, he strengthens Turkey's position in arguing that reCONciliation
should happen without recognition of the genocide, reparations,
or restoration of Wilsonian Armenia to its rightful owners.
In this, he's supported by sectors of society in Turkey. One Aybars
Gorgulu, program officer at the Foreign Policy Program of the Turkish
Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV), a Turkish think-tank,
asserts, "Armenian diaspora needs to see the change in Turks' approach
to 1915."
Great, so, we see the change, then what? If the terminus of the
Armeno-Turkish relationship is a journey of a million miles, then
we've advanced maybe 10 miles. That's better than the one mile of
just a decade ago, but it is still insignificant in the overall scheme
of things.
By the way, TESEV, on its own website reports it "organized a
study trip in the Armenian capital Yerevan on 4-6 June, 2012...[for]
academics, students, media, and civil society representatives who have
been actively involved in...discussing Turkish-Armenian relations
since 2010 but never been to Armenia before." Without having the
benefit of following, personally, the participants' activities in
Yerevan, my instinctive reaction is that this just provided grist
for the reCONciliation mill.
The fact that we have made some progress is a testament to the value of
the pressure we have applied to Turkey. Much more is needed. This does
not mean, and I say this emphatically, that we should not engage our
adversaries. Quite the contrary, we should speak with them, and openly,
this way neither side can accuse the other of misrepresenting the
content of any contacts. Interestingly, my article from two weeks ago,
"Turks Must Be Smoking Their Own Poppies" has inadvertently followed
this two-step approach: The "pressure" came from pointing out the flaws
in a Turkish academician's article. The "engage" part arose with that
author wanting to meet when she's in the Los Angeles area next.
Engagement is not of the sort that Davutoglu revealed during his
trip to Yerevan-that he had been meeting with Armenians on the sly
wherever he traveled. That's just a tactic to enable reCONciliation.
Please, from now on, whenever we hear "reCONciliation" being brandished
as the ultimate good and goal in relations with our denialist neighbor,
let's recognize it for the vacuous blather it represents at this
point in our million-mile journey.
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/12/18/yegparian-reconciliation/