Tweet
Daily Sabah, Turkey
Jan 30 2015
1915 and the foresight to perceive change
by MARKAR ESAYAN
In my previous column, I pointed out that the conflict on which term
is more convenient to explain the 1915 incidents most accurately veils
the efforts to understand what it actually is. First of all, as this
political context is excluded, I think the incidents of 1915
correspond to the conditions given in the 1948 U.N. Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Raphael Lemkin,
who endeavors to build a legal ground for the term "genocide," agreed
with that, too.
Armenians could barely recover until the 1960s in various corners of
the world where they headed from their homeland. During those years,
the Eichmann case was being heard. Armenians began lobbying activities
in the countries where they were densely populated in due to Turkey's
denials. Thus the process to make the events of 1915 recognized as
genocide in parliaments was initiated.
As no one can deny, all methods of civil fights without violence are
legitimate. However, as the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia (ASALA), an Armenian terrorist organization, began to claim
the lives of Turkish diplomats in the 1970s, this rigidity also
influenced the civilian sphere. It can be argued that the denialist
attitude of Turkey settled on a more legitimate ground with those
murders. And the U.S. started to come closer to Turkey's argument upon
the start of those deaths after U.S. President Ronald Reagan's terms.
The murders by ASALA fortified this denialist approach by Turkey and
silenced the academics and journalists who tried to see 1915 from a
more objective perspective. But it would be an over interpretation to
argue that Turkey could have adopted a more objective approach at an
earlier date if ASALA had not existed since Turkey's position was
ideological and already fixed in the state mind. But we could still
have found a more positive ground at an earlier date.
One way or another, the parties spent their energies on denial and its
legitimacy. Those negative energies that were supporting each other
did not allow for different voices.
The fight was addressing Turkey's denialist attitude. As Turkey had
not changed its position on the subject for a long time, this
situation could be said to have created a status quo, and the anomaly
could not be diagnosed because an attitude against denial did not mean
an effort to understand and describe the events of 1915. Consequently,
the subject shifted from its central focus to the political
consequences of the incident in the works on the 1915 incident. Thus,
the events of 1915 were attempted to be understood not through its
content, but through some of its political consequences.
That might have continued for a long time. However, Turkey is now
experiencing a new phase. This phase initiated a process that could
introduce leaving denial policies behind. This condition is even
reflected in official statements from the state. An official
condolence was issued for the 1915 tragedy last year and the prime
ministry issued a groundbreaking statement on the eighth-year
commemoration of Hrant Dink's assassination this year. More
importantly, all of these efforts to leave aside the official
arguments and understand the great tragedy in 1915 have a potential to
change the rules of the game in terms of its consequences.
If we regard these steps as a temporary strategy to get over the 100th
year since the 1915 events without damage, we would be laying our
heads in the ground since the Armenian issue is one of the symbolic
realms representing Turkey's wish to face its past and make a new
beginning. Not a pragmatist decision, but a 12-year process of efforts
to confront reality has enabled such progress. As a natural result of
the steps taken for 12 years in regard to democratization and
separation from the former Kemalist regime, the wish to face the
Armenian problem in a more realistic, courageous and conscientious way
has come to the forefront in society.
To sum up, this process in Turkey will continue by getting stronger.
Behaving as if Turkey is still in its former position might tilt the
windmills.
While Turkey is in transformation, Armenia and all Armenians around
the world are also required to adopt an up-to-date position
accordingly. Otherwise, it would also mean another kind of denial, and
change always troubles those who deny it.
http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/markar_esayan/2015/01/30/1915-and-the-foresight-to-perceive-change
From: Baghdasarian
Jan 30 2015
1915 and the foresight to perceive change
by MARKAR ESAYAN
In my previous column, I pointed out that the conflict on which term
is more convenient to explain the 1915 incidents most accurately veils
the efforts to understand what it actually is. First of all, as this
political context is excluded, I think the incidents of 1915
correspond to the conditions given in the 1948 U.N. Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Raphael Lemkin,
who endeavors to build a legal ground for the term "genocide," agreed
with that, too.
Armenians could barely recover until the 1960s in various corners of
the world where they headed from their homeland. During those years,
the Eichmann case was being heard. Armenians began lobbying activities
in the countries where they were densely populated in due to Turkey's
denials. Thus the process to make the events of 1915 recognized as
genocide in parliaments was initiated.
As no one can deny, all methods of civil fights without violence are
legitimate. However, as the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia (ASALA), an Armenian terrorist organization, began to claim
the lives of Turkish diplomats in the 1970s, this rigidity also
influenced the civilian sphere. It can be argued that the denialist
attitude of Turkey settled on a more legitimate ground with those
murders. And the U.S. started to come closer to Turkey's argument upon
the start of those deaths after U.S. President Ronald Reagan's terms.
The murders by ASALA fortified this denialist approach by Turkey and
silenced the academics and journalists who tried to see 1915 from a
more objective perspective. But it would be an over interpretation to
argue that Turkey could have adopted a more objective approach at an
earlier date if ASALA had not existed since Turkey's position was
ideological and already fixed in the state mind. But we could still
have found a more positive ground at an earlier date.
One way or another, the parties spent their energies on denial and its
legitimacy. Those negative energies that were supporting each other
did not allow for different voices.
The fight was addressing Turkey's denialist attitude. As Turkey had
not changed its position on the subject for a long time, this
situation could be said to have created a status quo, and the anomaly
could not be diagnosed because an attitude against denial did not mean
an effort to understand and describe the events of 1915. Consequently,
the subject shifted from its central focus to the political
consequences of the incident in the works on the 1915 incident. Thus,
the events of 1915 were attempted to be understood not through its
content, but through some of its political consequences.
That might have continued for a long time. However, Turkey is now
experiencing a new phase. This phase initiated a process that could
introduce leaving denial policies behind. This condition is even
reflected in official statements from the state. An official
condolence was issued for the 1915 tragedy last year and the prime
ministry issued a groundbreaking statement on the eighth-year
commemoration of Hrant Dink's assassination this year. More
importantly, all of these efforts to leave aside the official
arguments and understand the great tragedy in 1915 have a potential to
change the rules of the game in terms of its consequences.
If we regard these steps as a temporary strategy to get over the 100th
year since the 1915 events without damage, we would be laying our
heads in the ground since the Armenian issue is one of the symbolic
realms representing Turkey's wish to face its past and make a new
beginning. Not a pragmatist decision, but a 12-year process of efforts
to confront reality has enabled such progress. As a natural result of
the steps taken for 12 years in regard to democratization and
separation from the former Kemalist regime, the wish to face the
Armenian problem in a more realistic, courageous and conscientious way
has come to the forefront in society.
To sum up, this process in Turkey will continue by getting stronger.
Behaving as if Turkey is still in its former position might tilt the
windmills.
While Turkey is in transformation, Armenia and all Armenians around
the world are also required to adopt an up-to-date position
accordingly. Otherwise, it would also mean another kind of denial, and
change always troubles those who deny it.
http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/markar_esayan/2015/01/30/1915-and-the-foresight-to-perceive-change
From: Baghdasarian