ON TURKEY AND THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO SING A NEW SONG
By Taner Akcam
History News Network
Mar ch 9 2010
Taner Akcam is associate professor of history and the Kaloosdian/Mugar
Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies, at the Strassler Center for
Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Clark University (Worcester, MA). A
leading international authority on the Armenian Genocide, he is
the author of "A Shameful Act: the Armenian Genocide and Turkish
Responsibility." He is coordinating a workshop at Clark to examine the
"State of the Art of Armenian Genocide Research" (April 8-10).
What is the difference between the Obama and Bush administrations?
Nothing, it seems, when it comes to facing history and recognizing
historic wrongdoings. They both sing the same old song.
The White House appears poised to reject House Resolution 252,
which the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed last week (March
4), an unusual move in a long history of failed resolutions in
"recognition of the Armenian Genocide." Congressional hearings,
resolutions in sub-committees, bold campaign promises, and quiet
assurances all come to the same predictable conclusion when Turkey
flexes its muscles and openly threatens American interests in the
region. Members of Congress reliably agree to step back, not because
they don’t believe the Armenians were victims of genocide but because
of perceived national interests in the Middle East.
According to the old song, facing history is a moral response rather
than an understanding that addressing historic wrongs is actually
in the real national interests of the region. Two arguments seem
forever in conflict: National security versus morality or, in other
phraseology, realists versus moral fundamentalists.
Turkish realists are very much concerned about national security. In
2007, a Turkish Court convicted two Turkish-Armenian journalists, Arat
Dink, son of assassinated journalist Hrant Dink, and Sarkis Seropyan,
for using the term "genocide" and sentenced them to a year in prison.
The Turkish court stated that: "Talk about genocide, both in Turkey
and in other countries, unfavourably [sic] affects national security
and the national interest." The ruling stated further that the
Republic of Turkey is under "a hostile diplomatic siege consisting
of genocide resolutions… The acceptance of this claim may lead
in future centuries to a questioning of the sovereignty rights of
the Republic of Turkey…" Due to these national security concerns,
the court declared that speech about genocide in 1915 is not protected.
The court found that "the use of these freedoms can be limited in
accordance with aims such as the protection of national security,
of public order, of public security." The realists here in the United
States should understand that their actions are consistent with the
undemocratic rulings of the Turkish court.
For decades, the Turkish state treated any acknowledgment of 1915 as
genocide as an attack on its national security. The state organized
witch hunts against intellectuals and scholars who made any reference
to it. Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel Prize winning author, and Hrant Dink
were put on trial, dragged from courtroom to courtroom. Hrant Dink’s
assassination in 2007 was an inevitable result of this campaign.
The U.S. Government and Congress need to acknowledge that Turkey is
using the pretext of national security to limit freedom of speech,
a basic democratic right. Indeed, returning to the history now in
dispute, let us recall that Armenian demands for equality and social
reform in the declining years of the Ottoman Empire were also treated
as threats to the state. The mantra of national security became a
pretense for their massacre and deportation. Today the demand for
an honest account of history is being handled in the same way: as a
security problem.
The irony is that criminalizing historical inquiry in the name of
national security is not only an obstacle to democracy, but also leads
directly to real security problems for Turkey and the entire region.
This "self-fulfilling prophecy" can be shown in the Armenian genocide
of the past and in the Kurdish problem today. The present-day Kurdish
problem arose from their democratic demands for social reform, which
were classified as a threat to security. As long as Turkey continues to
regard moral principles and national security as mutually exclusive,
and refuses to come to terms with the past for national security
reasons–indeed, as long as Turkey’s national security is defined in
opposition to an honest historical reckoning–international problems
will persist.
If one knows the Middle East, one easily recognizes that historical
injustices and persistent denial of these injustices by one or another
state or ethnic-religious group are major stumbling blocks. History
and historical injustices are not merely academic issues from the past;
the past IS the present in the Middle East. For realpolitik to succeed
in the region, it is necessary to interrogate the acknowledgement of
historic wrongs into a policy of national security.
The United States must change its policy toward the recognition of the
Armenian genocide and reevaluate what constitutes security for Turkey.
During the nineteenth century the French concept of "Bon pour
l’Orient!" ["It is good enough for the East"] legitimized French
colonialism and provided justification for demeaning the countries
they colonized and for acts they committed there. The United States
must rid itself of this classic colonial patronization. If democracy
and facing history is good for the United States then the same should
hold true for Turkey.
Congress and the White House should be suspicious of the national
interest canard as a reason to reject the genocide resolution. Such an
argument runs counter to American values and legitimizes the Turkish
state’s campaign against intellectuals. We need to start singing a
new song that doesn’t support authoritarian and denialist regimes
in the Middle East. Security in Turkey and the United States must
integrate facing history and democratization.
Obama came to Washington on a platform of change. My question again:
What is the difference between Obama and Bush administration? Could the
answer be the acceptance of the genocide resolution and the promotion
of democratic change in the Middle East?