Turkey And The Genocide Question
TrackBacks (0) Comments (2)
There are two instances when Armenian-Turkish relations surface in the collective consciousness of Americans: election years (when candidates promise US recognition of the genocide) and whenever a resolution is introduced to the House or Senate.
Over fear of irreparable harm to U.S.-Turkish relations, these resolutions are always blocked either in the Senate or by the President. Recently, the issue came to light as the House Foreign Affairs Committeevoted in a nonbinding resolution to call the acts perpetrated against Armenians in 1915 a genocide. The vote set off a wave of protests by the Turkish government towards the US and Armenia. Turkey recalled its ambassador for "consultation" in Ankara. As per the usual sequence of events, the day after the vote, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the recognition bill would be, as always, killed in transit.
Meanwhile, Turkey continues to deny that there was in fact a genocide. Armenians, mostly in the diaspora, continue to provide evidence and arguments to justify the Armenian, and largely international, claim that a genocide took place.
The subject at hand is not whether or not there was indeed genocide, as my grandparents were survivors. I have heard first-person accounts of the atrocities my grandparents witnessed. I have conducted academic research regarding diplomatic dispatches and Turkish documentation of the events as race extermination.
One could argue that the more interesting topic is genocide denial as the national policy of Turkey. The greatest problem for Armenian-Turkish relations is not the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, but rather the lack of discourse and the institutionalized nationalism in Turkey. If a state-sponsored assassin, such as 17-year-old Ogun Samast, can murder Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink because he called for open discourse, or a Nobel Laureate, such as Orhan Pamuk, can be prosecuted and jailed by the Turkish judicial system for being critical of the state, where does that leave Turkey in its ambitions toward EU membership?
The recognition of the Armenian Genocide pales in comparison to the depths of Turkey's national and international problems. Turkey's denial and protests are only to its detriment: recognition of the Armenian Genocide is precisely what would lend Turkey not only legitimacy in the international realm, but also open the doors to open discourse in the state, and perhaps even steps toward a real democracy.
The creator of modern Turkish identity is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He came into power after Turkey's defeat in WWI, and is still praised as the man who "westernized" Turkey. It is no secret that modern Turkish governments are well aware of the events of 1915, and in hushed circles, admit to the wrongdoing as constituting genocide. In fact, the incoming government was so appalled by the actions of the Young Turks that one of Ataturk's first courses of action was to order the leaders of the Young Turk movement (Enver, Talaat & Jemal Pashas) to stand trial for their crimes. Until ten years ago, official archives in Turkey held records of not only the accusations of genocide made by Ataturk and his supporters, but also evidence collected by his government for use in the prosecution of the Young Turks, which showed the names of the victims, the total number of deaths per village and the official documents ordering the total annihilation of a population as a racial extermination campaign.
Turkish citizens today are taught only the virtues of Turkish history. Any citizens or visitors uttering statements that might be negative about the Turkish government, or mentioning genocide are swiftly prosecuted under Turkish Penal Code 301, which prosecutes anything deemed insulting to Turkish identity. There is little space for public discourse, which would allow for discussion of the Armenian Genocide, and other political disputes (such as the Kurdish question) that mire the Turkish government's accession to the EU.
Although Turkey harbors ambitions of EU membership and leadership in the Muslim world, these roles cannot be claimed simply. They must be earned. Unfortunately, Turkey's track record of press freedom, freedom of expression, judicial practices and the protection of dissent leave much to be desired.
But there is a clear path to Turkish reform. The first step is owning up to its own past.
No comments:
Post a Comment