Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
Foreign Policy Forum (FPF) created by Association of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen (TUSIAD) and Bogazici University (BU) held a conference on the Turkish-Armenian conflict at 16:00-18:00 on November 11, 2014 in the TUSIAD building. Its objective was to dissect the events of 1915 which are perceived and interpreted variously by different groups in Turkey, Armenia and other parts of the world on the eve of its hundredth year. The promotion stated that it specifically wished to discuss historical memories, political discourses, and policies of the states and the conference was titled: “To discuss the 1915 Tragedy in its hundredth year: Meaning, Memory, and Politics.” Up to now, everything is hunky-dory… Nos problemos…
The problem arises when one reads who are invited: An Armenian historian (Bentley University teaching staff Asbed Kotchikian,) another Armenian historian (Paris Sciences Po University teaching staff Michel Marian,) and a third Armenian ( Director of Analytical Center for Global and Regional Cooperation in Erivan.) “OK,” you say to yourself “these are all Armenians and they are certainly a party to this conflict.” Then your eyes scroll down to see how many are invited to represent the responsible opposing views. And therein lies the problem: there is none!
You check the list over and over; you look front and back, nope! Nothing! Zip! Nada!
But if only Armenians are invited to a “conference,” how can the unsuspecting audiences be given the benefit of rebuttals? Who will know if the facts are omitted due to anti-Turkish bias, figures are misrepresented to tow the official Armenian party-line, and/or interpretations are stacked against Turks and other Muslims?
If only one side of a conflict is heard, can one call this conference an intellectual inquiry? Or even a conference?
Where does it say conferences shall be held among like-minded individuals?
Can one arrive at the absolute truth by hearing the Armenians only? Can justice be served if half the story is deliberately excluded?
Now, if TUSIAD did this alone, I could perhaps understand it. I would convince myself that the kind businessmen wanted a quick resolution of a nagging issue, so that they can attend to what they do best: conduct business. But here lies the second problem: one of the organizers is a professor! In fact, he is teaching, sadly, at my alma-mater, namely Bogazici University. Does not this professor know that universities are vibrant places precisely because controversial issues can be freely explored in scholarly and civil manner? How can one “explore” a controversy, if all the discussants agree? Is not that conference reduced to a chorus? Or even a monologue? How can a “professor” allow such a violation of scholarly values? Is that what he learned when he studied for his PhD degree? Where did he get is degrees?
A Turkish-American group wrote to the organizers and kindly proposed the names of four historians from the United States who they thought would level the field and present a fuller picture to the unsuspecting audiences. Fair and square, right? Apparently, it is perfectly all right for some organizers to invite a group of partisans and still call it a “conference.” Try doing that at an American campus… Would not the American media immediately pounce on the organizer, questioning his/her credentials and degrees if not his/her values and even character?
Turkish-American proposal was rejected. Reason? Fasten your seat belts for this one. The organizers wanted to find out what the Armenians wanted from Turkey and what feelings and thoughts motivated them. Duh!
They said they never organize conferences where a single idea dominates. Really? So what different ideas are there among the three Armenians invited? Can you hear a single word about the Turkish victims of Armenian revolutionaries out of them? How about Armenian terrorism? Armenian revolts? Bank raids, assassinations, and bombings? Treason? Territorial demands? Killing of Turks and other Muslims under uniforms of the invaders (Russian, French, British, and Greek?)
You might think “Well, let them do it. What could go wrong?” Answer: A lot!
Which brings us to the main theme of this essay. Just look at the ill-informed perceptions presented by the Hurriyet Daily News (HDN) columnist below. Her readers will be misinformed and mislead. How many of those readers, you think, will bother to sit down and read “Death & Exile” by Justin McCarthy or “The Armenians…” by Esat Uras? They will just take those misconceptions at face value. This is how the Armenian lobby wins… and we help them win!
BARÇIN YİNANÇ, in her column “Turkey, Armenia, 2015 and beyond” (HDN, Nov 13, 2014) says this:
“… (w)e need to continue talking about the issue, which has two dimensions: Turkish–Armenian relations on the one hand, and on the other hand the Armenian genocide issue,” ignoring the Azerbaijan dimension. She should also used the qualifier “alleged” before genocide, because there is no court verdict saying it “is” genocide.
Then she adds this part which is really painful for me: “There has been a transition from total denial to the acknowledgment that something terrible and tragic happened.” Turkey never denied that there was a vast and complex human suffering that engulfed all the people of the era and area. Form where does she get this idea of “total denial”? Here is an excerpt from the letter to the New York Times by the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Sukru Elekdag, as early as May 23, 1985: “… No one has ever denied the overall tragedy that, 70 years ago, brought death and suffering to all the people of the Ottoman Empire’s eastern Anatolian region, and that Armenians perished as a part of this…”
Massacre of the truth continues with her sweeping generalizations when she opines “… Yet Turkey, be it at the government or at the society level, is still far from accepting the word genocide…” And why should Turkey or any other country recognize genocide? Are you not aware of the 1948 U.N. Convention of Prevention and Punishment of Genocide requirements that for a genocide label to stand, a “competent tribunal” has to go through “due process” to prove “intent to destroy?” Was this ever done in the Armenian case? No. So how can you claim genocide when there is no genocide verdict? To call the 1915 events genocide, would be telling a lie to the public that there is a court verdict, when there is absolutely not. This position was supported by the December 17, 2013 verdict by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Perincek vs Switzerland. So, the law says that there is no genocide verdict, but you expect Turkey to accept it anyway?
Here is how successful Armenian propaganda has been on this columnist: “While there is a worldwide acceptance of the 1915 events as genocide…” Really? Worldwide, huh? Did you know that the United Nations, the United Sates, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia do not accept the label of genocide? In fact, no nation in Africa or Asia accept it. Only about 20 countries accept the Armenian propaganda and political pressure to call it genocide. That’s 20 out of 205 countries. Do the math! What do you come up with? Less than 20%, right? That is “worldwide” in your book?
Besides, genocide is not decided by parliaments, politicians, or media. It is not decided by columnists, activists, and propagandists. It is not decided by historians, clergy, businessmen, athletes or actors. There is one and only one venue for a genocide verdict: “competent tribunal” as set forth by the UN, which is the International Court of Justice in the Haag. So, do you realize how ignorant your comment is now expecting Turkey “… at the government or at the society level…” to accept the word genocide? It boils down to one’s respect for law. We are talking about law here, not history anymore. While we are at it, maybe you should be introduced to the concept of laws having no jurisdiction retroactively. In other words, a 1948 UN law cannot dictate characterization on 1915. One cannot judge the past with current values and laws, as that would undermine the entire justice system.
Here is another jewel : “… Armenians are disappointed that this has not triggered legal action…” If you knew the facts that 1923 Lausanne agreement dealt with the Armenian issue and the 1934 & 1937 agreements with the United Sates dealt with Armenian-American issues, then you would know that those chapters are closed by international law. Another fact is that if Armenian knew they could win a court battle against Turkey, do you think they would wait a second to sue Turkey? Why do you think Armenian archives are still closed today?
Ah, the denial laws. My favorite. She quotes the Armenian frustration “… that has led them to concentrate on enacting laws to criminalize deniers…” History cannot and should not be legislated. Doing so would destroy the freedom of speech, as well as free press and academia. Is that what the Armenians want? Well, I got news for you: they will never ever get it. If you do not believe me, go ahead and read what the French scholars said about draconian denial laws in Appel De Blois: “… History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories…” I certainly put my signature on that public statement.
“Taboos about reparation and restitution can also be broken in Turkey…” Taboos? Is that what you think reparations and restitutions are? Have you heard about the four step Armenian plans that have been published for almost a hundred years now? 1) Acceptance 2) Apology 3)Reparations 4) Land ? Do you know Armenians think step 1 is satisfied , thanks to ill-informed liberals and columnists in Turkey, and step 2 is achieved by PM Erdogan’s 23 April 2014 speech of condolence, and that it is time for reparations now? That is not “taboo,” that is the “plan.”
And for Ünal Çeviköz’s claim that opening borders with Armenia will somehow serve Turkish interests better, I am reminded of Greece promising Turkey to behave if Turkey allowed Greece back into NATO in 1981. Thirty plus years later, we all know how it turned out, don’t we? I find Çeviköz’s argument weak, ill-informed, off-base, and unrealistic. Anyone who fails to appreciate the scope and depth of Azerbaijan’s pain and suffering at the hands of Armenians and Azerbaijan’s sensitivity about suggestions of giving the store away to Armenians in spite of ongoing Armenian aggression and occupation in Karabakh, should not be a diplomat in the first place.
Summary: There are two sides to every story and you cannot resolve differences by hearing only one side.
Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
Son of Turkish Survivors from both Paternal and Maternal Sides
9741 Irvine Center Drive,
Irvine, CA 92618, USA
Phone: 949-878-1186