TURKEY CONFRONTS HISTORY
Opinion By Suat Kiniklioglu
Turkish Daily News
Sept 27 2005
Two weeks ago I was fortunate enough to visit a photo exhibition of
the Sept. 6-7, 1955, street riots in Istanbul. For me it was truly
an experience and cause for reflection. Seeing such graphic evidence
of those events made me genuinely uncomfortable. The exhibition and
the debate it sparked was a great leap forward in the quest towards
confronting some of the unpleasant episodes of our recent history.
Although the opening of the exhibition was marred by a protest of
a small group of nationalists, the exhibition marked an important
change in Turkey. Fifty years later, Turks on both sides of the debate
intensely deliberated the Sept. 6-7 events. The debate allowed Turks
to become aware of some of the unknown aspects of those events.
Similarly, the infamous Armenian conference, which was scheduled to
take place in May of this year, finally took place at Istanbul’s
Bilgi University last week. The conference became an important
event in itself when, in the aftermath of Dec. 17, some European
countries that are opposed to Turkey’s European Union accession
began to emphasize the Armenian issue as a precondition to Turkey’s
accession negotiations. The Turkish debate surrounding the events of
1915 had already tested new territory in the fall of 2004. Contrary
to Armenian diaspora allegations, Turks are intensely debating what
happened in 1915. A preview of the Turkish media coverage of the
Armenian issue would provide ample evidence of both the extent and
depth of the Turkish debate.
The organization of a conference on the Armenian issue that included
scholars describing the events of 1915 as “genocide” sparked widespread
protests from diverse segments of Turkish society. Coupled with the
earlier comments by Orhan Pamuk on the issue, the atmosphere became
poisoned. However, the last-minute cancellation of the conference
by Bosporus University in May and developments in the aftermath also
raised eyebrows about academic freedom in Turkey.
Contrary to claims by critics, the conference was not organized
to determine whether the events of 1915 constituted “genocide” but
instead was to be a healthy starting point for an honest discussion
on the subject. Some of the presentations that emphasized the need
to avoid the word “genocide,” to de-emotionalize the debate, were
seen as very constructive.
The Turkish government’s stance, particularly Justice Minister Cemil
Cicek’s turnaround on the conference, not only reflected an acute
awareness about the potential damages a second cancellation would have
brought about but also provided evidence of the political courage
of the AKP on these sensitive issues. The handling of the Armenian
conference, once again, confirmed the government’s determination to
start EU accession negotiations on Oct. 3.
The fact that the conference took place despite the sensitivity and
strong criticism surrounding it was also a positive step in terms of
assertion of academic freedom by the three universities involved. I
hope the bold steps taken by the three universities will set an
example to other foundations and universities.
All in all, we are experiencing a very significant but equally
difficult process. Turkey is opening up to the world, confronting
its recent history and discovering the many different shades of its
social fabric. For this process to continue in a constructive fashion
we need Armenians to confront some of the dark episodes of Armenian
history as well. It would be most helpful if an Armenian conference
could acknowledge that Armenian soldiers returning to Anatolia with
the Russian army took revenge and killed many Turks in the process.
It would be a constructive step if somewhere along this process
Armenians could come to terms with the terror unleashed by the
Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), which
claimed the lives of 32 Turkish diplomats in the 1970s. I know we are
not there yet and that the Turkish side still needs to develop the
debate internally, but Turks and Armenians should ready themselves
for a historic reconciliation along these lines. Neither Turks nor
Armenians should continue to live with this historic burden on them.
The events of 1915-1923 and the 1970s with ASALA are too tragic and sad
for both sides. We need to find the courage and will to move forward.
There is no doubt the EU drive provides the primary catalyst
for progressive Turks to push through this process. A lot of
commentators expressed their skepticism when it was argued that the
accession process itself is as important as accession. However,
recent developments on the economic and political side confirm
the significance of the process itself. Despite the increasingly
“revanchist” atmosphere in the domestic political arena, facing up to
Sept. 6-7 and beginning to debate 1915 provide reason for optimism. I
am confident that the internal dynamics of Turkey are adequate to
sustain this process provided the target remains full EU membership.
* Suat Kýnýklýoðlu is director of the Ankara office of the German
Marshall Fund of the United States.
–Boundary_(ID_RvfDaPeMiMot4G0fyq/e4A)–