Tweet
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
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