Inside Higher Ed, DC
Sept 30 2005
X-Sender: Asbed Bedrossian <asbed@usc.edu>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 — ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Freed Scholar Speaks Out
Four months ago, Yektan Turkyilmaz was a doctoral student in cultural
anthropology at Duke University, well-regarded but little known
outside his field. Then, on June 17, authorities at the airport in
Yerevan, Armenia ordered him off a plane and placed him under arrest,
confiscating nearly 100 books and CDs of research he had done as the
first Turkish scholar ever granted access to the National Archives of
Armenia.
Over the summer, Turkyilmaz became a cause célèbre among scholarly
groups that believed the smuggling charges against him (supporters
say he was the first person Armenia has ever charged with illegally
exporting books) to be a pretext for what they considered a crackdown
on a researcher studying a politically sensitive period in the
country’s tangled history with Turkey. Major scholarly associations
and human rights groups, as well as academic and political leaders in
the United States and throughout the world, urged Armenia to drop the
charges against him.
After a short trial last month, a court found Turkyilmaz guilty of
trying to take books out of the country illegally, but suspended his
two-year sentence and released him. He returned to Duke early this
month to get back to his studies and his research. In an e-mail
interview with Inside Higher Ed, he discusses his detainment, why he
thinks he was arrested, and the implications of his situation for his
career, his profession and beyond.
Q: In court, you apparently acknowledged breaking the Armenian law
unknowingly. Does that mean you believe your arrest was legitimate,or
did the government have another motive?
A. Yes I did acknowledge that I unknowingly broke a `law,’ an obscure
law which applies to the:
`Contraband of narcotic drugs, neurological, strong, poisonous,
poisoning, radioactive or explosive materials, weapons, explosive
devices, ammunition, fire-arms, except smoothbore long barrel hunting
guns, nuclear, chemical, biological or other mass destruction
weapons, or dual-use materials, devices, or technologies which can
also be used for the creation or use of mass destruction weapons or
missile delivery systems thereof, strategic raw materials orcultural
values.’
But I am convinced the book charges were just a pretext for my
arrest. KGB officials (Armenia’s police are now formally known as the
National Security Service, but everyone, including they themselves,
still call them the KGB) were certain that I was a spy. The first day
one of the KGB agents told me that their endeavor was to clarify –
given that Armenia’s ceasefire with Azerbaijan had ended very
recently – that I had not been involved in espionage on behalf of the
Turks (they do not differentiate between Azeris and Turks!). That is
why they arrested me.
The interrogators’ questioning in the initial few days of my arrest
was entirely devoted to my research, my political views and
connections with Turkish intelligence and state officials. The
concept of `scholar’ is meaningless to them. According to them, as
the investigator put it, `all scholars are spies.’ All my friends and
contacts in Yerevan (most of whom have nothing to do with the books
found in my suitcases) have not only been interrogated by the KGB but
were also harassed and threatened. They were all told that I was a
Turkish spy. My friends who were at the airport with me were
threatened not to let anyone, especially my family, know about my
arrest. (When my sister contacted them via phone they denied that
they were with me at the airport! For that reason my family did not
know about my situation for 15 hours.)
My case was a violation of academic freedom and the right to
research. Investigators went through every bit of my research
material. They looked one by one at almost 20 thousand images saved
on the CDs and on my laptop. I was asked to prove that I had
permission to reproduce every single image and also that they
contained no `state secrets’ even though I had official permission to
do research in the archives. They posed questions about my political
ideas, dissertation topic, why I had learned Armenian, if I
personally would have had enough time to read the material I had
reproduced at the libraries and the Archives, my relations with
Turkish military and intelligence, etc.
The staff at the libraries and archives where I was conducting
research were not merely questioned about their personal connection
with me, but also forced to testify against me. They asked one
librarian `how dare you take a non-Armenian guy to `our’ national
Archives?’ I am also informed that, they had been forced to confirm
that I got permissions to conduct research at their institutions not
through legal procedure (implying that I bribed them to get
permission to do research!).
It was only later, when the Armenian secret service could find no
basis for their claims, that the issue of legally purchased,
second-hand books in my possession came into the picture.
Q: Do you think you were detained for political reasons? If so, why?
A: I am convinced that not only my arrest but also my release were
political decisions taken by (few but) very high ranking Armenian
officials. I believe this Cold War-era conspiracy was organized, or
at least encouraged, by those who have no wish to see cooperation and
improved relations between Turkey and Armenia. KGB officials’
mentality – a mixture of the Soviet way of thinking and nationalism
with xenophobic overtones – played a crucial role in making the
decision to detain me. Unfortunately, in today’s Armenia (like many
other ex-Soviet republics), there isn’t adequate political control
over KGB. I should also underline that there is an ongoing fight
between pro-democracy advocates and pro-Russia Soviet-style rule. For
me, it is relieving to know that I have received a good deal of
support from the pro-democracy politicians and large segments of the
Armenian society, which is very important.
I think the basic reason why they targeted me is that they could not
put me in any of their nationalist, primordialist categories. I was
like a UFO to them: a citizen of Turkey of Kurdish origin, student in
the US, critical of the Turkish official stance on controversial
historical issues, an admirer of the Armenian culture, collector of
old Armenian books and records, speaker of the language, a researcher
who has visited Armenia several times without any worries and
concerns, a foreigner who is vocal about his ideas, etc. A story too
good to believe, because for them, the world can never be that
colorful. For the people who were interrogating me, you are either
Armenian-Armenian with the `full’ meaning of the word, or Turkish or
anything else. If I were a conventional `Turk,’ as they would have
rather preferred to see me as, I believe, I may not have had any
troubles. I think, my endeavor to cross boundaries was deemed as a
threat by the people who decided on my arrest and by those who
interrogated me.
Q: Is there reason, legitimate or otherwise, why the Armenian
government would view your scholarly work with alarm? Can it be
perceived as `anti-Armenian”?
A: My work is not only about the history of the region but also about
historiography. Therefore, I don’t think that it favors any
nationalist historiography including the Armenian version. In that
sense my work is critical not only of the Turkish nationalist
historiography but also of the Kurdish and Armenian counterparts.
Hence my work can neither be called pro- or anti Armenian. That
question itself is based on nationalist anxieties, which I try to
analyze and move beyond in my scholarship.
There are some Armenian circles that do not sympathize with the usage
of Armenian resources by the Turkish scholars. This, too, is a
nationalist (if not racist) stance that we as academics need to
challenge for a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the
past as well of today.
Q: Most scholars characterize the deaths of some 1.5 million
Armenians during World War I as a genocide, but relatively few
Turkish scholars do so. What is your take on what happened?
A: It is very clear that almost the entire Armenian population of
eastern Anatolia was subjected to forced migrations and massacres
beginning in the early months of 1915.
Q: Do you think your treatment by Armenian authorities will undercut
Turkish willingness to explore the treatment of Armenians under
Ottoman rule?
A: That may be the message people will likely take away. But I think
we should be stubborn and should not give up.
Q: Were you aware, while you were being held, of the breadth of the
effort on your behalf, both from other academics and from leaders in
the political world like Bob Dole?
A: To some extent I was. I knew that my friends would realize why I
could be detained and also that they would support me to the end. I
was getting some kind of information from the outside, but it was not
always very accurate.
Here, I would like to take the opportunity to thank especially my
colleagues, Turkish, Armenian and American, who have demonstrated an
exemplary and meaningful solidarity. One upshot of my case, I
believe, is that unprecedented number of scholars, intellectuals and
activists from both groups came together, united around a common
cause. It was really great. I am grateful to all of them who have
signed the open letter to [Armenia’s] President Kocharian and hope
that my case has opened up further space of dialogue and cooperation
between the critical intellectuals studying the controversial and
painful pages of the history of the region.
I would also like to present my gratitude to the entire Duke
community, especially to President Brodhead, to Provost Lange and, of
course, to my heroic adviser Orin Starn, and to the department of
cultural anthropology. I want to mention three other names who were
crucial in the process, Prof. Ayse Gul Altinay (who orchestrated the
`global’ campaign for my release) of Sabanci University,
Istanbul/Turkey; Prof. Charles Kurzman of UNC, and Prof. Richard
Hovannissian of UCLA. Their support was invaluable.
I am also extremely grateful to the American politicians who got
involved. Bob Dole’s intervention was really crucial. I thank him
very much.
Q: Did you ever consider yourself to be in true danger?
A: Yes I think I did, especially after the first week.
Q: Do you envision returning to Armenia to continue your research?
Can you complete your dissertation without going back?
A: This is really a very tough question. I should first underline the
fact that for me there is no difference between Istanbul and Yerevan.
I feel at home when I am in Yerevan. I love walking on the streets
(especially Mashtots) of the city, or sitting at the lovely cafes
around the opera building. I have very close friends over there.
However, there is also this bitter experience I have gone through. It
is very sad for me to know that there are people in Armenia who do
not want me to do research in the country. I know that those people
are a minority, yet they are powerful. They still keep their old
isolationist way of thinking which they have recently blended with a
xenophobic brand of `Armenian patriotism.’ Whoever it is behind the
provocation against me, there is no doubt that they have damaged the
image of Armenia in the international arena. As a scholar, I have
been deeply disheartened by this incident.
But there are also people like the director of the National Archives
of Armenia, Mr. Amatuni Virabian, who from the first day of my
arrest, understood what was happening behind the scene and diligently
supported me. I received considerable support from
pro-democratization Armenian intellectuals. I also know that majority
of the people in Armenia eventually understood that the officials
made a big mistake and also that I was not an enemy of the Armenian
people.
I don’t want those who have tried to intimidate independent
researchers through my own case to win over those who have been
seeking and struggling for improved relations and scholarly
cooperation between the two countries and communities. Therefore I
will definitely go back.
I think I have compiled enough material to finish my dissertation.
That is, it is not a must for me to go back to Armenia for my
dissertation fieldwork research.
Q: Should your case make scholars wary of studying contentious
subjects? Do you have advice for other researchers contemplating
exploring such a topic?
A: Caution, they have to be really very cautious. They should be very
careful about the laws and procedures especially about permissions
necessary for research. No signal of danger should be overlooked. It
might be a good idea not to be publicly very visible. I also
recommend them to always back-up their work and if possible to
download it to the internet.
Q: What are your career plans for after you have your doctorate? Do
you envision entering the academy, and if so, any idea in what
country?
A: I am willing to pursue an academic career in the U.S. where I can
attain a free environment necessary for my studies.
Finally, I want to emphasize that I am not angry or bitter. I want to
put everything aside and concentrate on my work. I am an academic not
a politician, notwithstanding the fact that I was caught in the
middle of a fight among hostile political actors.
– Doug Lederman