Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISTANBUL: Professor Libaridian responds to Turkish FM's call for a '

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ISTANBUL: Professor Libaridian responds to Turkish FM's call for a '

    Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
    July 21 2014


    Professor Libaridian responds to Turkish FM's call for a `just memory'

    GERARD LIBARIDIAN

    It is not often that a minister of foreign affairs will dare to reveal
    the logic behind his government's policy on a sensitive matter. This
    is what Mr. Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu has done recently in his article,
    `Turkish-Armenian Relations: Is a `Just Memory' Possible?' published
    in the Turkish Policy Quarterly's Spring 2014 issue.

    Together, the concepts `just' and `memory' have a high and fair
    sounding appeal; however, the juxtaposition of these two words is more
    revealing than the minister suspects. The word `just' conjures a moral
    category, while memory refers to a fallible, though important,
    category of knowledge regarding the past. Neither of the words in that
    expression `nor the article in general` offer precision.

    Here, moral and social categories are intertwined in order to bypass
    the critical essence of the problem: history.

    Essentially, Mr. DavutoÄ?lu argues that in order for reconciliation to
    be reached, Armenians need to adjust their memory by considering all
    of the good times they had while they were subjects of the Ottoman
    Empire.

    Armenians, having lost more than half their numbers and their
    homeland, are asked to change their collective memory; they are asked
    to accept the minister's version of that history that reduces
    massacres and deportations to `relocations,' then to `emigration' and,
    finally, to `war and conflict.'

    The minister thinks he is solving his problem, as well as the problem
    of the Turkish state ` how to avoid the term genocide. Whether his
    solution is a realistic one or not, he certainly is not solving what
    Armenians consider to be the problem. What is being attempted here is
    the new conquest, the conquest of memory.

    I am writing this commentary not only as a historian who specializes
    in Ottoman Armenian history, but also as the main official
    representing Armenia responsible for negotiations aimed at the
    normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia from 1992
    through 1997. We had no preconditions for the establishment of normal
    relations between the two, despite some opposition in Armenia and a
    wider one in the diaspora. We did not adjust our memory, but instead
    placed state and regional interests above that memory for the sake of
    our peoples. That was a more dignified, even if costlier, way to deal
    with the disparities in memory than what the minister offers. I must
    add that although more vociferous about the recognition of the
    Genocide, the two subsequent administrations to ours have maintained
    the same basic position.

    The present government of Turkey has also continued the policy of its
    predecessors in adopting a `Turkishness' based policy toward the
    Karabakh problem. Baku has relied on Ankara's unconditional support to
    maintain its unyielding position in the negotiation process. One can
    appreciate the difficulties in Turkey's current domestic problems and
    its increased dependence on Azerbaijani investments in the country.
    But Armenians should not be asked to resolve Turkey's problems. If
    Armenians are being asked to make the ostensible good times they had
    under Ottoman rule to balance their memory and make reconciliation
    possible, why is it that a powerful state like Turkey cannot remember
    those same good times and for the sake of these good old times
    normalize relations with Armenia unconditionally?

    I cannot expect Diaspora Armenians to relativize what happened to
    their people when it comes to relations with the Turkish state when
    that Turkish state seems to continue the path of engineering memory
    instead of respecting it. It seems that in doing so, the Turkish state
    is failing to appreciate the depth of hurt and insult when they try to
    teach Armenians lessons in history, in addition to the fatal blow to
    their history that was inflicted beginning in 1915.

    There is no doubt that the Minister's recognition of Ittihad leaders'
    policies, however defined and characterized, represents a major
    breakthrough. But these courageous and appreciated words will acquire
    their full significance only when (1) the original acts they are
    condemning are not minimized and (2) the words are followed by actions
    that mitigate the original act and give reason to Armenians not to
    `despise.'

    * Gerard J. Libaridian is a historian who served as senior advisor to
    the first president of independent Armenia, between 1991 and 1997.
    This is an abridged version of the commentary he wrote for Turkish
    Policy Quarterly in response to Mr. DavutoÄ?lu's article. For the full
    text of Mr. Libaridian's critique, visit: www.turkishpolicy.com

    July/22/2014

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/professor-libaridian-responds-to-turkish-fms-call-for-a-just-memory.aspx?pageID=238&nID=69435&NewsCatID=396



    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X