The Armenian problem (II)
OPINIONS
TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI
Sunday, May 8, 2005
Yusuf KANLI – Without exaggeration and in order to avoid becoming a
victim of nationalist sentiments, Turks must come to realize that in
one way or another the Armenian population of this land was uprooted
from its ancestral domain and as a result a whole culture vanished
from our country. Are we Turks solely responsible for this? Most
definitely not! As much as the Turks, the Armenian hordes, together
with the Western powers, as well as Russia, that incited the Armenian
nationalist uprising should all be blamed equally, not only for the
Armenian suffering, but for the suffering of the entire population
of that region during those years.
Of course, the explanation of my dear friend Hrant Dink — editor of
the Armenian Agos weekly — that irrespective of whether they were
killed, exiled or whatever, the fact that the Armenian population of
the country was uprooted from its fatherland and a culture of over
4,000 years was annihilated on Turkish territory is what Armenians
refer to as genocide, which is a good explanation but leads us nowhere.
With such a mentality, one has to ask Dink if he considers the
occupation and ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh and its environs
of its 1.5 million or so Azerbaijani population an act of genocide
as well? Besides, what happened during and immediately after World
War I in eastern Anatolia took place long before the international
community adopted the genocide description, but the Armenian occupation
of Karabakh and displaced Azerbaijani victims, too, and their suffering
and attendant problems continue.
Of course, no one should try to belittle or attempt to ignore the
massive suffering of the peoples of Anatolia, irrespective of their
religion and/or ethnic background. But at the same time, efforts to
identify the real historic background that prompt these claims and
counterclaims should not be spared.
Naturally, this matter has to be explored and debated by historians,
but those very same historians undertaking such a daunting task should
not themselves be the victims of nationalist prejudice. Whatever
the historic reality, they must be able to unearth the true facts
of what happened without having ulterior motives as well as being
devoid of concern of what could happen to them once their work is
complete. Historians who are academically, morally and/or ethically
questioned by either side must not be involved in this process in
any way.
And, of course, Turkey and Armenia must firstly have the political
will to have a dialogue primarily between themselves on the political
dimensions of the problem, and, secondly, to declare a readiness to
accept whatever the outcome the work of a joint committee of historians
may produce.
To facilitate this process of reconciliation and re-discovery of
the historical truth behind our common suffering some sort of a
“propaganda moratorium” ought to be declared by Turkey and Armenia,
while in order to facilitate human contact — which would help the
two peoples better understand each other better — Turkey must open
its border with Armenia.
Armenia has declared on many occasions that it has no territorial
designs on Turkish territory. Yet any move by Armenia to erase
references in its declaration of independence that imply any
territorial designs on Turkish territory will be a step that would
help the consolidation of confidence between the two countries. The
approach of the current Turkish government to the Armenian issue
must be reciprocated by Yerevan. The two nations must be able to say
“that’s enough” to the past that continues to haunt their common
future. This antagonism cannot be allowed to continue forever at the
expense of both the two peoples.