Tweet
ARMENIANS AND ERDOGAN
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 10 2014
Recep Tayyip Erdoðan (Photo: Today's Zaman, Mustafa Kirazlý)
September 10, 2014, Wednesday/ 16:01:47/ by ALIN OZINIAN
Support from some Armenians -- who most certainly are not a monolithic
Christian community -- for the Justice and Development Party (AK
Party), appearing to have made peace with Islam, seemed odd in the
beginning.
According to those who believed that there could be no conciliation
between Christianity and Islam, Armenians should have supported
a secularist party. The support of people from different ethnic
or religious backgrounds for social democrat parties in Western
democracies has been common because social democrats guaranteed freedom
for these people and respected their religious or ethnic orientation.
In Turkey, however, we all know that secularism does not welcome
religious freedom, even concerning Islam, and focuses on protection
of the republican regime rather than the population of the country as
a whole. As such, minorities in this country during the republican
era were not only seen as a potential threat but also deliberately
weakened and undermined.
With this history in mind, part of the Armenian community in Turkey
welcomed Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, who promised EU membership as well as
freedom and equality. Minorities who were fearful of the conservative
mainstream attempted to assuage their fears with the notion that
a Muslim who would sincerely practice his religion would also be
attentive to the priorities and needs of members of other religions
as well. The AK Party was perceived as conservative but democratic in
those circles. Even when it was accused of promoting fundamentalist
activities, some Armenians still viewed the AK Party as a conservative,
not an Islamist, party. The Islamic tradition might have become the
architect of pro-freedom Turkish politics. This was the beacon of hope.
The AK Party administration, which since the 2000s frequently stressed
that it would remain committed to the EU process and Copenhagen
criteria, raised confidence among the Armenian community. In
2007, Mesrob Mutafyan, archbishop of the Armenian Patriarchate of
Constantinople, said in an interview with German Der Spiegel: "We
prefer the AK Party over the CHP. The AK Party is less nationalistic
vis-a-vis minorities. The Erdoðan government is more open to our
requests and concerns." In this interview, he signaled that Armenians
would vote for Erdoðan.
The return of seized minority assets and properties was a first in
republican history, even though it was a gesture rather than the
recognition of a right. So, despite the shortcomings, this was a
huge shift. The state, for the first time, did not seize; instead,
it returned what it had seized. On the other hand, even the most
democratic wing of the opposition accused Erdoðan of favoring Armenians
in his dealings and decisions.
The issuance of the Non-Muslim Minorities Directive
In 2010, the prime minister issued a motion known as the Non-Muslim
Minorities Directive, in which the state admitted past mistakes and
misbehaviors and asked institutions and officials to act leniently
vis-a-vis minorities, pay attention to protecting their cemeteries,
comply with court rulings in land registry offices concerning
non-Muslim foundations, recognize the protocols of non-Muslim leaders
and take action against publications provoking enmity and animosity.
While part of the Armenian community was still suspicious, most of
them were happy with these developments.
There was, on the other hand, no opening in the 1915 case. Erdoðan
remained subscribed to the official thesis of 2005: "This never
happened in our history. Our belief does not allow genocide. We have
strong evidence to support this." In 2008, he made the following
statement: "There is no such thing as genocide in our culture and
civilization. We cannot accept this accusation." In 2011, he was still
committed to this stance: "They argue that Christians and Armenians
were massacred. On what basis are you raising this argument? We are
proud of our history. We do not have a history that would pose problems
to us. We can confront any incident in our past." But Armenians were
still supporting the AK Party because nobody else would make a better
statement on this matter.
Erdoðan, who never referred to Armenians, Greeks, Jews and Assyrians
as Turkish in his speeches, said: "There are 170,000 Armenians in our
country. Seventy thousand are our citizens. But we are just tolerant
of the remaining 100,000. If necessary, I will send them to their
country." The Aktamar Church was renovated and Erdoðan, who was trying
to present himself as a tolerant leader, consented to the placement
of a cross on the church four years later. In addition, Erdoðan did
not compromise on the policy of keeping the border gate with Armenia
closed, despite some occasional signs of leniency on this matter.
Erdoðan was warm and sincere in fast-breaking dinners that were
attended by official and non-official leaders of the Armenian
community. However, no sign of this sincerity was observed when it
came to identifying the murderers of Armenian women in Samatya and
of Sevag Balýkcý, who was serving in the military. The same spirit
existed in the evacuation of the Armenian village of Kessab in Syria
and the famous "hospitality" of Turkey.
In the message Erdoðan delivered one day before April 24 where, albeit
insincerely, he offered condolences to those who lost their lives
during World War, I which had some impact upon Armenians in Turkey.
After this message, everybody forgot about the fact that those who
studied Armenian issues at university were profiled. They also forgot
about the official-history lies taught in schools. They wanted to
forget the hope that their conditions could be improved.
Erdoðan prosecutor in Ergenekon case
In the Ergenekon case, Erdoðan initially presented himself as the
prosecutor of this case. In respect to the Hrant Dink murder, he said
they would not let the prosecution become blocked. But in the end,
the explanation behind this can be seen in the following statement:
"I believe that the Hrant Dink case is a personalized case. It was
committed because his views were not shared and embraced."
The pledges for democracy and Westernization were replaced by
conservative and authoritarian realities. The struggle occurred
because Erdoðan felt he was powerful enough to pursue his own agenda.
Armenians were no longer valuable to the government.
In the republic's history, minorities have been brutalized and
persecuted. For this reason, some Armenians hoped that they would be
better off under an AK Party administration after years of persecution
and brutality. We have to be realistic; they were right. The AK Party
treated Armenians in a way that the republic's history is not familiar
with. But equal citizenship, which is the Armenian's primary goal, was
never granted. In every case, the state's interests were prioritized
over the interests of Armenians.
People have forgotten that the change was incomplete. It is time for
a new Turkey to be established through the restoration of the old
Turkey. Frankly speaking, in such turmoil and in this land where
hatred against those who are not Turk is naturalized, Erdoðan's
offensive remarks against Armenians are not seen as "too much." The
people who still applaud and support the AK Party would not care,
and some of Armenians would tolerate this "misunderstanding" anyway.
*Alin Ozinian is an independent analyst.
http://www.todayszaman.com/op-ed_armenians-and-erdogan_358302.html
From: Baghdasarian
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 10 2014
Recep Tayyip Erdoðan (Photo: Today's Zaman, Mustafa Kirazlý)
September 10, 2014, Wednesday/ 16:01:47/ by ALIN OZINIAN
Support from some Armenians -- who most certainly are not a monolithic
Christian community -- for the Justice and Development Party (AK
Party), appearing to have made peace with Islam, seemed odd in the
beginning.
According to those who believed that there could be no conciliation
between Christianity and Islam, Armenians should have supported
a secularist party. The support of people from different ethnic
or religious backgrounds for social democrat parties in Western
democracies has been common because social democrats guaranteed freedom
for these people and respected their religious or ethnic orientation.
In Turkey, however, we all know that secularism does not welcome
religious freedom, even concerning Islam, and focuses on protection
of the republican regime rather than the population of the country as
a whole. As such, minorities in this country during the republican
era were not only seen as a potential threat but also deliberately
weakened and undermined.
With this history in mind, part of the Armenian community in Turkey
welcomed Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, who promised EU membership as well as
freedom and equality. Minorities who were fearful of the conservative
mainstream attempted to assuage their fears with the notion that
a Muslim who would sincerely practice his religion would also be
attentive to the priorities and needs of members of other religions
as well. The AK Party was perceived as conservative but democratic in
those circles. Even when it was accused of promoting fundamentalist
activities, some Armenians still viewed the AK Party as a conservative,
not an Islamist, party. The Islamic tradition might have become the
architect of pro-freedom Turkish politics. This was the beacon of hope.
The AK Party administration, which since the 2000s frequently stressed
that it would remain committed to the EU process and Copenhagen
criteria, raised confidence among the Armenian community. In
2007, Mesrob Mutafyan, archbishop of the Armenian Patriarchate of
Constantinople, said in an interview with German Der Spiegel: "We
prefer the AK Party over the CHP. The AK Party is less nationalistic
vis-a-vis minorities. The Erdoðan government is more open to our
requests and concerns." In this interview, he signaled that Armenians
would vote for Erdoðan.
The return of seized minority assets and properties was a first in
republican history, even though it was a gesture rather than the
recognition of a right. So, despite the shortcomings, this was a
huge shift. The state, for the first time, did not seize; instead,
it returned what it had seized. On the other hand, even the most
democratic wing of the opposition accused Erdoðan of favoring Armenians
in his dealings and decisions.
The issuance of the Non-Muslim Minorities Directive
In 2010, the prime minister issued a motion known as the Non-Muslim
Minorities Directive, in which the state admitted past mistakes and
misbehaviors and asked institutions and officials to act leniently
vis-a-vis minorities, pay attention to protecting their cemeteries,
comply with court rulings in land registry offices concerning
non-Muslim foundations, recognize the protocols of non-Muslim leaders
and take action against publications provoking enmity and animosity.
While part of the Armenian community was still suspicious, most of
them were happy with these developments.
There was, on the other hand, no opening in the 1915 case. Erdoðan
remained subscribed to the official thesis of 2005: "This never
happened in our history. Our belief does not allow genocide. We have
strong evidence to support this." In 2008, he made the following
statement: "There is no such thing as genocide in our culture and
civilization. We cannot accept this accusation." In 2011, he was still
committed to this stance: "They argue that Christians and Armenians
were massacred. On what basis are you raising this argument? We are
proud of our history. We do not have a history that would pose problems
to us. We can confront any incident in our past." But Armenians were
still supporting the AK Party because nobody else would make a better
statement on this matter.
Erdoðan, who never referred to Armenians, Greeks, Jews and Assyrians
as Turkish in his speeches, said: "There are 170,000 Armenians in our
country. Seventy thousand are our citizens. But we are just tolerant
of the remaining 100,000. If necessary, I will send them to their
country." The Aktamar Church was renovated and Erdoðan, who was trying
to present himself as a tolerant leader, consented to the placement
of a cross on the church four years later. In addition, Erdoðan did
not compromise on the policy of keeping the border gate with Armenia
closed, despite some occasional signs of leniency on this matter.
Erdoðan was warm and sincere in fast-breaking dinners that were
attended by official and non-official leaders of the Armenian
community. However, no sign of this sincerity was observed when it
came to identifying the murderers of Armenian women in Samatya and
of Sevag Balýkcý, who was serving in the military. The same spirit
existed in the evacuation of the Armenian village of Kessab in Syria
and the famous "hospitality" of Turkey.
In the message Erdoðan delivered one day before April 24 where, albeit
insincerely, he offered condolences to those who lost their lives
during World War, I which had some impact upon Armenians in Turkey.
After this message, everybody forgot about the fact that those who
studied Armenian issues at university were profiled. They also forgot
about the official-history lies taught in schools. They wanted to
forget the hope that their conditions could be improved.
Erdoðan prosecutor in Ergenekon case
In the Ergenekon case, Erdoðan initially presented himself as the
prosecutor of this case. In respect to the Hrant Dink murder, he said
they would not let the prosecution become blocked. But in the end,
the explanation behind this can be seen in the following statement:
"I believe that the Hrant Dink case is a personalized case. It was
committed because his views were not shared and embraced."
The pledges for democracy and Westernization were replaced by
conservative and authoritarian realities. The struggle occurred
because Erdoðan felt he was powerful enough to pursue his own agenda.
Armenians were no longer valuable to the government.
In the republic's history, minorities have been brutalized and
persecuted. For this reason, some Armenians hoped that they would be
better off under an AK Party administration after years of persecution
and brutality. We have to be realistic; they were right. The AK Party
treated Armenians in a way that the republic's history is not familiar
with. But equal citizenship, which is the Armenian's primary goal, was
never granted. In every case, the state's interests were prioritized
over the interests of Armenians.
People have forgotten that the change was incomplete. It is time for
a new Turkey to be established through the restoration of the old
Turkey. Frankly speaking, in such turmoil and in this land where
hatred against those who are not Turk is naturalized, Erdoðan's
offensive remarks against Armenians are not seen as "too much." The
people who still applaud and support the AK Party would not care,
and some of Armenians would tolerate this "misunderstanding" anyway.
*Alin Ozinian is an independent analyst.
http://www.todayszaman.com/op-ed_armenians-and-erdogan_358302.html
From: Baghdasarian