Monday, December 15, 2008

A CAMPAIGN OF APOLOGY

BY: Ömer Engin LÜTEM


Lately a group of four Turkish intellectuals publicized a declaration stating that their conscience do not acquiesce in the indifference towards the ‘‘Great Disaster’’ the Ottoman Armenians had been exposed to and the denial thereof, that they reject this injustice; and they offered apologies to Armenians on their own account.
According to the press news, this declaration will first be submitted to the signature of some intellectuals and/or well-known persons and then will presumably be opened to the signing of the general public over the internet with a year long campaign.
A point needs to be clarified before embarking on the essence of the subject. The term ‘‘Great Disaster’’ mentioned in the declaration is the Turkish translation of the ‘‘Metz Yegern’’ used in the Armenian language for ‘‘ genocide’’ as an attribute to the events of the 1915. Those who drafted the declaration have somehow avoided at this stage using the word ‘‘genocide ’’ and chose a synonym from the Armenian language. This may especially be due to the negative reactions the word genocide has created in Turkey. This sly approach was first exercised in 2001 by Pope Jean-Pierre II and he uttered the word Metz Yegern rather than genocide to alleviate the criticisms of Turkey.
When we come to the essence of the issue; for persons to offer apologies, they should have made a move that harmed or at least injured other individuals or communities in the first place. When one looks at the question from this angle, it will be seen that no living individual today is responsible for the relocation of Armenians for more than a century have elapsed ever since. One may think that they are apologizing on behalf of their grand fathers. Yet, in this case, their own grand fathers should have had responsibility related with the relocation, and this is in fact a very rare case. We personally do not presume that the forefathers of the four individuals who drafted the said declaration have any involvement in such an affair. However, it may be that among their grand fathers there were those killed by the Armenian gangs or, if they were migrants of Balkan origin, then they may have been killed with Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian bullets. On the other hand, even if the forefathers had responsibility as regards relocation, we should point out that the guilt and all types of responsibility are not hereditary, that no one can be judged based on his/her forefather’s guilt as responsible and is therefore not required to apologize, and that it will not have any judicial consequences even if he/she does so.
One of the eye-catching points in the declaration is the allegation that the disasters which the Armenians experienced have been dealt with indifference. In reality, it is a fact that in Turkey not only the public at large but also the intellectual circles are not well informed on the recent history of the country. This is true as regards disasters experienced by the Turks as much as by the Armenians. It is witnessed with pleasure that this situation caused by an inadequate education policy is changing in recent times especially with the contribution of research conducted in relation with issues pertaining to the Armenian case.
When it comes to the allegation that the declaration what the Armenians had experienced are being denied in Turkey, Turkey’s reaction in this context is very normal since the Armenians put forward the genocide charge not only against the Ottoman Empire but also against the Turkey of our day in the form of an accusation and because it is evident that at the base of these allegations lies some claims concerning compensation and territories to be ceded to Armenia. Hence a very great majority of the Turkish people definitely refuse the allegations of genocide and, on this basis, the Turkish policy follows the same line. The fact that not a single person endorses the Armenian allegations in the Turkish Parliament where many political tendencies and movements widely contrasting one another exist, is a feature that needs to be considered both by the Armenians and the foreign circles which support them.
Bringing to an end that the events of 1915 determine the Turkish-Armenian relations and prevent their development, it’s necessary to investigate those events with a scientific approach freed from feelings of rancor, hatred and vengeance and utopian calculations of political interest. In this context, accepting Turkey’s proposal to establish a Joint Commission of Historians should be considered as a necessary first step.
When we try to search why the need aroused to publicise the said declaration, we come across the authors’ explanations that it was purely a personal initiative. In other words, they claim to have acted with humanistic thoughts and, especially, with feelings of justice. If this is true, then why are they not interested in the immense tragedies lived in the recent history by the people whom they are also members of, why don’t they mention those millions chased from the lands lost by the Ottoman Empire starting from the 19th century, most of whom killed or have taken refuge in Thrace or Anatolia in extremely miserable conditions, and, why don’t they demand apologies from those who are responsible of this situation, starting from the Armenians. The atrocities and persecutions exacted on the Turks and other Moslem peoples during the Balkan Wars, pre- and post World War I periods, and Turkish Independence War have especially been well documented. On the other hand, murders of the Turkish diplomats committed by Armenians until twenty years ago solely for they represented their country abroad should also be considered within the same framework. Making no mention to these murders contributes to a deliberate policy implemented to efface them from the collective memory of the mankind.
In our opinion, the most negative aspect of this declaration is that it prefers the sorrows of the Armenians to those of the Turks and by so doing exibits a fundamentally biased and unjust attitude towards Turkey and the Turks.
Although it is alleged that this declaration was a personal initiative, the expressed intention to demand the signatures of the others and a year long campaign envisaged for that end, is a proof of the existence of a political movement rather than a personal initiative, aiming at getting as many Turks as possible to accept that an Armenian genocide had taken place. It is quite obvious that the project will start with the ‘‘apology’’ believed to impress a large number of persons due to its emotional aspect, in case people embrace the apology then will come the stage of recognizing or accepting genocide; once this is accomplished, payment of a compensation to Armenians will take its place in the agenda followed by the ultimate phase of ceding a certain size of land to Armenia in Eastern Anatolia.
The question of why this campaign was started now also deserves particular attention. We think the main reason is the Turkish public opinion’s welcoming attitude towards the “détente” process initiated by President Gül’s visit to Erivan and the desire to find urgent solutions to problems with Armenia and the Armenians which became more marked in the aftermath of the visit. This situation might have led those who prepared the declaration to think the Turkish public opinion was psychologically ready for starting a stage by stage process of endorsing the Armenian allegations. On this occasion, we need to remember that some USA an EU circles have suggested since the year 2000 that ‘‘the Turks should face up to their history’’, that they started certain initiatives and supported some persons and organizations within this framework. The aim is to distance the Turks from nationalist attitudes and behaviors by confronting their history, in other words, by accepting the accusations directed at them, and as a result, to acquiesce in ideas and proposals coming from those circles without much resistance. In short, the Turks’ being subjected to a kind of political reeducation is on the agenda. It would be appropriate to conceive the ‘‘apology campaign’’ as an element of this ‘‘reeducation”.
Diaspora and the Armenian press have mentioned this declaration in news texts but did not make any noteworthy comments in this connection. This may be due to the fact that the initiative is quite new and its results are not yet predictable along with the apology itself being quite a low level initiative insufficient to meet the Armenian demands. As a matter of fact, several days after the publishing of the declaration 300 intellectuals in Armenia sent an open letter to President Gül stating that as long as Turkey does not accept the ‘‘reality of Armenian genocide’’, a sincere dialog and a genuine reconciliation between the two nations will not be possible.
Neither any reaction came from the official hierarchy of Armenia. For Armenia has on many occasions announced that It did not demand Turkey’s acceptance of genocide allegations as a prerequisite to establish relations, it is understood that the apology is not a worthy enough factor deserving special attention. On the other hand, at serious negotiations conducted on a diplomatic level, such sentimentalities as ‘‘apology’’ are quite rare.
When we to evaluate the probable results of the declaration, we must say that every attempt proposing that the Turks accuse themselves hearten the militant Armenians and cause them to assume a more irreconcilable position. This will create trouble first of all for the present Armenian Government that conducts negotiations with Turkey and the fear of making compromise could lead these negotiations to a stalemate.
On the other hand, emergence of some intellectuals in Turkey who think just like the Armenians will give the impression to those in the Obama team who support accepting genocide that Turkey will not show a harsh reaction in case a decision passes through the American Congress. The same is valid for the draft resolutions pending at the parliaments of some other countries. Yet the experience shows that the pressures applied on Turkey yields results contrary to expectations and cause Turkey to harden its stance. In that case, the endeavors to construct a normal relationship between Turkey and Armenia may as well be postponed to an unknown date.
To sum up, though they may look innocent at first glance, the said declaration and the planned campaign have a potential to create many negative developments.