ANKARA: Turkey’s EU Membership’s Impact on the Caucasus

Turkey’s EU Membership’s Impact on the Caucasus
View: Sedat Laciner

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
April 19 2005

There are relatively three small countries (Georgia, Azerbaijan,
and Armenia) and three large countries (Russia, Turkey, and Iran)
in the Caucasus. With the collapse of the USSR, Turkey does not have
common boundaries with Russia anymore. Turkey has been one of the
first countries to recognize the newly independent states.

Oil has a special role in the importance of the region. Especially
the Azerbaijani oil makes the region very vital. In addition, in the
transportation of Central Asian oil and natural gas, the Caucasus
is an important route. In the post-Cold War era, it can be said
that three approaches in the region have competed for ascendancy:
the Iranian approach, Russia’ unwillingness to retreat, and Turkey’s
desire for integration with the West.

The Iranian approach is related more with Azerbaijan and wishes for the
establishment of a form of government in this country similar to that
in Iran. As with Georgia and Armenia, Iran stays close to Russia’s
position and endeavors to keep the US and Israel out of the region.
Russia, in addition to its cooperation with Iran, wants to maintain
its influence in the region. From the insurgency in Abkhazia to the
invasion of Karabakh, there is no ethnic conflict in the region in
which Russia has no part. As a matter of fact, both Georgia and
Azerbaijan blame Russia for instigating ethnic secession in the
region. During the tension that mounted in Ossetia in August 2004,
it is no coincidence for Georgian officials to state that “This is a
conflict between Russia and Georgia. War with Russia is imminent.” In
addition, Russia is internally occupied with Chechnya and a bloody war
is going on there for a decade. In short, be it Russia as a state or
some elements in Russia who are fuelling instability in the Caucasus,
or even if this is only a perception, it can be said that Russia will
not act as a locomotive in efforts to consolidate regional stability
and cohesion. In this respect, Georgia and Azerbaijan seek to improve
their relations with Turkey, the US, and NATO and have demonstrated
their intention on various occasions. Expressing their desire to enter
NATO and the EU repeatedly, these countries see Western institutions
as the guarantee for their survival and Turkey as a gateway to
the West. Indeed, relations with Turkey go further back than is
normally thought. During Ottoman times, Georgians and Azerbaijanis
asked the Ottomans for help to ensure their safety against outside
powers and were met with reception. In a sense, today’s convergence
can be viewed as continuity. In the framework of the cooperation in
question, the Turkish military trains the Georgian and Azerbaijani
militaries. Numerous Turkish companies operate in these countries.
Another area that strikes attention is education. In addition to the
thousands of Georgians and Azerbaijanis attending Turkish universities,
relations are further improved with the opening of primary, secondary,
and higher education facilities in these countries by Turkish
private enterprise. The event that perfects these developments is the
Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The energy pipeline starting in Azerbaijan,
passing through Georgia and ending in Turkey’s southern shores closely
knits the three countries to each other. This route also connects
the Caucasus to the Mediterranean, that is, to Europe. Lately, the
subject that is paid close attention to is to attach more tightly the
region to the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and Europe by railways,
roads, and seaways and all directions pass through Turkey.

While talking about Turkish-Caucasian relations, the subject of
ethnic ties cannot be overlooked. Today, some 100,000 Armenians and
millions of Georgians and Azerbaijanis live in Turkey. In addition
to Armenians, Georgians and Azerbaijanis who are Turkish citizens,
there are some 100,000 workers are known to be in Turkey, legally
or illegally. Moreover, of the minorities that constitute Georgia’s
populace, a sizeable number lives in Turkey. These groups also maintain
their ties with the Caucasus. This is to such an extent that when
clashes erupt between Georgians and Abkhazians, both groups try to
muster the support of Turkish public opinion. It is a blessing that the
Caucasian groups that are in dispute do not take their problems into
the Turkish political scene. To summarize, Turkey has the dynamics
to maintain the balance among the region’s great powers. This is
not to suggest that there is a Turkish model against Russia and Iran
and one that aims to oust the two countries from the region. On the
contrary, the Turkish model is inclusive as well as supportive of
integration. Turkey’s approach is in conformity not only with Russia’s
and Iran’s aims, but also with those of NATO, the EU, and the US.

Following the approaches of the global and the region’s great powers,
when analyzing the cognition of the region’s relatively small states,
Georgia and Azerbaijan seem to be in close collaboration with Turkey.
The two states also think of NATO and the EU very pleasantly and
desire to become a member in both institutions while both have
fostered close military ties with the US. Most importantly, both
countries hope that Turkey will carry them to the Western system.
During the latest NATO summit that took place in Istanbul in 2004 a
meeting was held between the foreign ministers of Turkey, Armenia,
and Azerbaijan. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stated that
Turkey had a sincere intention to improve relations with Armenia and
that the current government was much more eager for that end than
previous governments. Oskanian also said that they welcomed Turkey’s
leadership regarding regional dialogue and underscored Turkey’s role
in the region once again. The three countries’ representatives all
unanimously agreed that the EU and NATO sought a new strategy in
Southern Caucasus and that regional actors had to help this search.
The representatives argued that with the inclusion of Georgia, this
strategy had to be shaped by the region’s countries and be given its
last form by the EU and NATO and that Turkey had a special role in
this strategy and in bringing the region closer to Europe. In short,
Turkey’s EU membership will both hasten the region’s direction towards
Europe and at the same time enable the EU to act as a significant
actor in the region with a strong and applicable vision.

Business Of Russia and Armenia To Speak In Same Language

BUSINESS OF RUSSIA AND ARMENIA TO SPEAK IN SAME LANGUAGE

Pan Armenian News
18.04.2005 08:08

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Today Chairmen of the Chambers of Commerce
and Industry of Armenia and the Perm Oblast signed agreement on
cooperation. As Acting Governor of the Perm Oblast Oleg Chirkunov
noted after the signing ceremony, the visit of the delegation will
convey an impulse for more active commodity circulation between one of
the largest regions of Russia and Armenia. “The agreement will allow
the Armenian and Russian business to speak in the same language”, he
noted adding that besides business ties cultural cooperation should
be developed as well.

Canadian PM meets with influential Canadian-Armenian Organization

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian National Committee of Canada
3401 rue Olivar Asselin
Montreal, Qc, H4J 1L5
Contact: Shant Karayan
Tel: 514-334-1299
Fax: 514-334-6853
E-mail: [email protected]

PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA MEETS WITH INFLUENTIAL CANADIAN-ARMENIAN ORGANIZATION

Montréal – Right Hon. Paul Martin met with representatives of the
Armenian National Committee of Canada on thursday, april 14, 2005.

The representatives of the ANCC thanked the Prime Minister for his
policy of allowing a free vote in the House of Commons which rendered
possible the adoption of motion M-380 recognizing the Armenian
Genocide. They asked the PM for a declaration by the government to
declare the 24th of April of every year as a day of remembrance for
the Armenian Genocide.

The Prime Minister received as a token of gratitude from the ANCC an
antique Armenian Karabagh rug.

Dr. Vagharsh Ehramdjian, Chairman of the ANCC stated that “it is very
rewarding to know that the Prime Minister of our country, can take
time out of his busy schedule to discuss matters relating to
minorities.”

“It is the first time that we meet with the Prime Minister, and i must
admit that he was very sympathetic of our aspirations,” added
Dr. Girair Basmadjian, President of the Armenian National Committee.

-30-

Second Group of Armenian Peacekeepers Departed For Kosovo

Pan Armenian News

SECOND GROUP OF ARMENIAN PEACEKEEPERS DEPARTED FOR KOSOVO

15.04.2005 03:41

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Today is a very important day for Armenia, as Armenian
peacekeepers are again departing for Kosovo with a new mission, Armenian
Deputy Defense Minister, Lieutenant General Artur Aghabekian stated when
addressing the peacekeepers, who departed for Kosovo this morning, press
service of the RA Defense Ministry reports. In his words, it once again
proves that Armenia is integrating into the process of international
security providing. As the Deputy Defense Minister noted, Armenian people
have many times derived encouragement from international community and today
when Armenia enjoys peace and stability it cannot remain indifferent to the
people, who are in need for peace. `The departure of your brothers-in-arms
to Iraq is nor accidental. Be sure that contributing to the security of
international peace you contribute to the sustainable development and
security of your homeland’, A. Aghabekian stated. `Peacekeeping is an
honorary and important mission as you represent your state’, the Deputy
Minister said. To note, the first group of the Armenian peacekeepers
returned from Kosovo today.

None Dared Call it Genocide

None Dared Call It Genocide
Yigal Schleifer. The Jerusalem Report. May 2, 2005. pg. 24

Of course, the question of what occurred fundamentally divides Turks
and Armenians. What’s clear is that with the approach of World War I,
the Ottoman Empire found itself in a state of steep decline, and
confronting a growing sense of national identity among its subjects,
both Turks and non-Turks. The nationalism among its minorities –
especially Greeks and Armenians, who had historical territorial claims
on Ottoman lands – was particularly threatening to the Ottomans.
Armenians claim the Ottoman Turks killed as many as 1.5 million of
their people during the years 1915-1923 through deportations and mass
killings in what is now eastern Turkey. To the Armenians, this was an
ethnic cleansing campaign, meant to drive the non-Muslims out of
Turkey’s Anatolian heartland. On April 24, Armenians worldwide will
commemorate 90 years since the beginning of the massacres. Turkey
rejects the genocide claim, admitting that Armenians were killed at
the time, but disputes the number and says the deaths were unorganized
and part of wider regional wartime violence that also affected Muslim
Turks.

Perhaps inevitably, the newfound readiness to delve into the past is
evoking a backlash in Turkey. Openly discussing the genocide question
is “a radical shift, but it also brings about radical reactions,” says
sociologist [Ferhat Kentel]. “There are two things happening at the
same time: [progressive academics and intellectuals] are talking about
the Armenian issue, while nationalism becomes stronger.” In Turkish
nationalist ideology, Armenians are viewed as a seditious threat,
their claims of genocide nothing more than a ruse to take Turkish
territory. When Orhan Pamuk, one of Turkey’s best-known authors,
stated in a Swiss paper in early February that “a million Armenians
were killed in Turkey,” the response included death threats and
charges of dishonoring the state filed against him in court. A
governor in one rural Turkish district even ordered that all of
Pamuk’s books be taken off the shelves in the district’s few libraries
and destroyed, only to soon find out that none of the libraries had
any books by the author.

“To my sorrow, Israel has become Turkey’s principal partner in helping
it deny the Armenian claims,” says Yair Auron, a professor at Israel’s
Open University and author of “The Banality of Denial: Israel and the
Armenian Genocide.” While countries that have not recognized the
genocide will still send officials to commemoration events or issue
statements that use nuanced language to remember what happened without
calling it genocide, Israel refrains from doing either, Auron
says. The two times Israeli officials have made a public appearance at
a commemoration event – most notably by then- education minister Yossi
Sarid, in 2000, when he referred to what happened as “genocide” caused
strains with Ankara and led to disavowals from Jerusalem. And in 2003,
Naomi Nalbandian, an Israeli citizen of Armenian descent, was
pressured to change the text of remarks she had planned to deliver
when lighting a torch at Israel’s 55th Independence Day celebrations
at Mt. Herzl. Nalbandian was forced to delete a reference to herself
as a “third-generation survivor of the Armenian genocide carried out
in 1915.” Full Text (3876   words) (Copyright (c) 2005. The Jerusalem
Report)

None Dared Call It Genocide

For 90 years, the atrocities suffered by the Armenians at the hands of
Ottoman Turks were a taboo topic in Turkey. Now, the country has begun
to discuss this troubling chapter in its history.

Yigal Schleifer Istanbul

When it was launched 10 years ago, Agos, a weekly newspaper serving
Tur-key’s Armenian community, was meant to be a brash new
voice. Unlike two other papers that had been publishing for decades,
Agos was written mostly in Turkish, rather than Armenian
exclusively. It was a way of reaching out to younger readers of
Armenian descent, while at the same time expanding the paper’s impact
beyond the confines of the 60,000-member Armenian community, making it
both something of a public voice for the community and a window into
it.

If it broke new ground dealing with present-day problems, Agos, like
its older rivals, had to take a circuitous approach in talking about
the past. “Previously, when we talked about history” – in particular,
about the fate of Turkey’s once-sizable Armenian minority – “we didn’t
mention things that actually happened but focused instead on culture,”
says Hrant Dink, the newspaper’s founding editor, speaking in Agos’s
downtown Istanbul offices.

This roundabout method made sense: What happened to the Armenians in
Turkey during and just after World War I had long been one of the most
taboo and explosive topics in Turkey, the limits of its discussion
strictly controlled by the government. Those who claim there was a
genocide could conceivably be prosecuted for tarnishing the honor of
the Turkish state. An attempt two years to screen in Istanbul
Armenian-Canadian director Atom Egoyan’s “Ararat,” which deals with
the genocide issue, was called off after extreme nationalist groups
threatened violence.

Of course, the question of what occurred fundamentally divides Turks
and Armenians. What’s clear is that with the approach of World War I,
the Ottoman Empire found itself in a state of steep decline, and
confronting a growing sense of national identity among its subjects,
both Turks and non-Turks. The nationalism among its minorities –
especially Greeks and Armenians, who had historical territorial claims
on Ottoman lands – was particularly threatening to the
Ottomans. Armenians claim the Ottoman Turks killed as many as 1.5
million of their people during the years 1915-1923 through
deportations and mass killings in what is now eastern Turkey. To the
Armenians, this was an ethnic cleansing campaign, meant to drive the
non-Muslims out of Turkey’s Anatolian heartland. On April 24,
Armenians worldwide will commemorate 90 years since the beginning of
the massacres. Turkey rejects the genocide claim, admitting that
Armenians were killed at the time, but disputes the number and says
the deaths were unorganized and part of wider regional wartime
violence that also affected Muslim Turks.

Since the 1960s, the Armenians have been waging an international
campaign to have it recognized as genocide, a step that has been taken
as a symbolic gesture by legislatures in more than a dozen countries,
most notably France. In response, over the past 25 years, Ankara has
waged its own political fight to keep the word “genocide” from being
attached to what happened.

Until recently, the state’s official version of events was the only
one that could be aired publicly in Turkey. Those who dared to
challenge the taboo could expect a swift backlash in the press, and,
perhaps, in the case of academics, being blacklisted.

But over the last few years, something has started to shift in Turkey,
something that is being reflected in the pages of Agos, Dink
says. “Slowly we started to ask what happened to the Armenians,” he
says. “Now we’re at the point of telling what happened to them.”

But Agos is not the only venue in which a change is taking place. If
the subject of the Armenians’ fate was at one time never talked about
or even mentioned in the media or history books in Turkey, the topic
today has entered the public arena in a major way, particularly with
the approach of the anniversary.

With the government concerned about the country’s undemocratic image
as it presses its bid to enter the EU, it seems reluctant to clamp
down on freedom of speech. In recent years, a group of academics,
small in number but influential, have begun to question the official
narrative. Turkish newspapers are now filled with articles on the
subject. Most of them still ultimately reject the Armenian claims, but
some rather daringly push the envelope on what can be asked. For
example, the mainstream daily Milliyet recently ran a long interview
with Turkish historian Halil Berktay – one of the first academics to
support the genocide case – in which he called the Ottoman plan
against the Armenians “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”

Meanwhile, one of Turkey’s best-selling books right now, “My
Grandmother,” by Istanbul lawyer Fethiye Cetin, tells the true story
of an Armenian woman who survived the 1915 massacres and was raised as
a Muslim Turk.

These are developments that would have been unimaginable 10 years ago,
says Dink. “The Armenian problem is no longer seen as a taboo subject
in Turkey,” he says.

Turks say the softening of the country’s historical stance is one
aspect of increasing democratization and reforms, both related to
Turkey’s EU membership bid. These changes have spurred the growth of a
civil society, which has allowed an increasing number of
nongovernmental groups – from academics and businessmen to musicians
and women’s organizations – to meet with their Armenian counterparts,
in the process helping to redefine the debate in Turkey. At the same
time, as the limits on that debate expand – and as pressure grows on
Turkey to confront its past – a backlash is brewing, with the Turkish
state getting ready to fight for its honor.

The 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention defines the act as
measures “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” Although a clear- cut
definition exists, Turkey has been able over the years to bring just
enough contrary scholarship forward to keep going the debate of
whether what took place constituted genocide. What is certain is that
the Armenian issue, in many ways, long ago left the realm of history –
in Turkey and elsewhere – and firmly entered that of politics.

The Armenians’ campaign for recognition started in earnest in the
mid-1960s, around the time of the 50th anniversary commemoration of
the events of 1915, when their diaspora, especially in the United
States and France, had become more organized politically. By the year
2000, the campaign had picked up enough steam that the U.S. House of
Representatives came very close to passing a resolution recognizing
the genocide. But by that time, fighting the Armenian claims had
become a central tenet of Turkish foreign policy. Ankara has
threatened to sever relations with countries that pass genocide
resolutions, while in the case of the U.S., it threatened to cut off
access to Turkish air bases as well as cancel lucrative defense deals
if Congress recognized the Armenian claims. The lawmakers ultimately
agreed to shelve the bill after an appeal by then- president Bill
Clinton on the grounds of national interest. In the case of France,
Turkey temporarily withdrew its ambassador to Paris, and canceled
deals involving French companies after a genocide bill was passed
there in 2001.

The subject of intense lobbying by both the Turks and Armenians aside,
the genocide issue has also involved American Jewish organizations,
which have put their Washington connections behind Turkey’s cause, as
well as Israel, which has refrained from recognizing the Armenians’
claims, in order not to jeopardize its strategic relations with Turkey
(see box, page 26).

Inside Turkey, meanwhile, the Armenian issue was a non-subject, kept
out of the classrooms and textbooks. In the universities, which until
less than a decade ago were completely state-controlled, the topic was
off-limits for researchers.

“It used to be a silent thing,” says Ferhat Kentel, a sociologist at
Istanbul Bilgi University, one of several private universities that
have opened up in the country in the last decade. Kentel, along with a
colleague in the Armenian capital of Yerevan, has just completed the
first joint Turkish-Armenian public opinion survey, which found a high
level of mistrust and prejudice between the two nations, particularly
on the Armenian side. “When I was a kid, I wasn’t even aware of this
issue,” says Kentel.

Taner Akcam, a professor of history at the University of Minnesota and
the first Turkish academic to publicly describe the World War I-era
events as “genocide,” in the early 1990s, believes the tension with
the U.S. in 2000 over Congress’s actions helped turn the issue into
something Turks can discuss. As Congress came close to passing its
resolution, the Turkish press and public started paying more attention
to what was happening in Washington, contemplating the significance of
the Armenian issue in a way they never had before, he says.

“Before 2000, there was a shield outside of Turkey keeping anything
about the genocide issue from coming in,” says Akcam, 51, who left his
home country in 1997 after becoming a political liability that no
university wanted to touch. “The debate in 2000 made a crack in this
shield,” he says, speaking by telephone from Minneapolis. In response,
the Turkish government decided to add a domestic component to its
fight against the Armenians, introducing lessons teaching the Turkish
perspective to school curriculums. Akcam compares that move to Mikhail
Gorbachev’s Perestroika in the Soviet Union during the 1980s: a reform
that only left people wanting more. “Turkish society was curious to
know what happened. They couldn’t keep [the issue] out anymore,” Akcam
says.

At the same time, other forces were starting to make their mark on
Turkish politics and society. While at its Brussels summit last
December the EU finally decided to begin accession negotiations with
Turkey, EU-minded democratic reforms in Turkey had already started to
be put in place several years ago, creating more space for public
debate on the Armenian question.

“Turkey has transformed. The level of education has gone up and civil
society has expanded, so the state can no longer dominate and
monopolize the public sphere the way it used to,” says Fatma Muge
Gocek, a Turkish sociologist who teaches at the University of Michigan
and who is the co-organizer of the Workshop for Armenian- Turkish
Studies (WATS), a gathering of Turkish and Armenian scholars that has
been meeting annually since 2000.

Meanwhile, the growth of private universities in the country has meant
that researchers can slowly start delving into previously forbidden
topics or can say unpopular things without fearing the loss of their
jobs. “Generally speaking, the average academic mind is not open, but
there are some islands in the academic world who are trying to go
deeper, to investigate,” says Kentel.

Says David Phillips, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, in New York, who helped organize the now-defunct Turkish
Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), a group of high-level
Turkish and Armenian academics and former diplomats that held several
meetings between 2001 and 2004: “Five years back, you couldn’t talk to
anyone about Armenian issues” – be it the genocide claims or the lack
of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia – “because they
knew that the history was implicit in the discussion. Now there is a
veritable cottage industry of groups working on the Turkish-Armenian
issue.”

For example, Istanbul freight shipper Noyan Soyak helped found in 1997
a pioneering group that brings together businessmen from Turkey and
Armenia, which became independent in 1991, on joint projects. Though
neighbors, Turkey broke off diplomatic relations with Armenia in 1993
in the wake of its occupation of a large chunk of territory belonging
to Turkish ally Azerbaijan.

Soyak, a boyish-looking 38-year-old with bushy blondish hair, says the
organization stepped into a gaping void when it got off the
ground. “When we started, it was difficult to even publicly pronounce
the word ‘Armenia’ or ‘Armenians’ in Turkey,” says Soyak, whose group
– the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council – today has some
250 members from both countries. Among other projects, the council is
currently producing a jazz CD that brings together Turkish and
Armenian musicians. “As long as the borders are closed, doing business
is difficult, so we’re doing everything here but business,” Soyak says
with a shrug.

Perhaps inevitably, the newfound readiness to delve into the past is
evoking a backlash in Turkey. Openly discussing the genocide question
is “a radical shift, but it also brings about radical reactions,” says
sociologist Kentel. “There are two things happening at the same time:
[progressive academics and intellectuals] are talking about the
Armenian issue, while nationalism becomes stronger.” In Turkish
nationalist ideology, Armenians are viewed as a seditious threat,
their claims of genocide nothing more than a ruse to take Turkish
territory. When Orhan Pamuk, one of Turkey’s best-known authors,
stated in a Swiss paper in early February that “a million Armenians
were killed in Turkey,” the response included death threats and
charges of dishonoring the state filed against him in court. A
governor in one rural Turkish district even ordered that all of
Pamuk’s books be taken off the shelves in the district’s few libraries
and destroyed, only to soon find out that none of the libraries had
any books by the author.

While civil society groups have taken the lead in pushing Turkey along
in confronting the Armenian question, in recent weeks the Turkish
state has made it clear that it is not quite out of the picture,
stepping in in order to once again try and set the course of the
debate on the issue.

For Turkey’s ruling elite, the Armenian issue still remains a bete
noir, one that is especially threatening today. “Turkey feels [that
recognizing the genocide] might be a precondition for entrance to the
EU,” says Yusuf Halacoglu, director of the Turkish Historical
Society. This quasi-governmental body has recently been stepping up
its work on countering the Armenian claims, even sponsoring
archaeological digs in Eastern Turkey that are intended to uncover
mass graves of Turks allegedly massacred by Armenians. “No one has
said this explicitly, but we see that this is being discussed behind
the curtains.” Although European officials have denied this, it is
also true that the EU – which has been trying to promote a “good
neighbor” policy in Europe and the surrounding region – would prefer
that Turkey patch up its differences with Armenia sooner rather than
later.

In response, the Turkish state has been revving up its in-house
counter-information efforts. Halacoglu’s organization, for example, is
busy collecting material from European and American archives that it
says will prove once and for all the falsity of the Armenian claims.

In his spacious office in Ankara, Halacoglu, dressed in a dark
pinstripe suit, lays out copies of war-era maps and diplomatic cables
on a coffee table. According to his group’s research, Halacoglu says
around 300,000 Armenians died between 1915 and 1918, only 10,000 of
them massacred. The rest died of hunger and disease, he simply
explains, not touching on what role deportation might have had in
bringing on either of those conditions.

“Throughout Europe at the time, we see that a lot of people are dying
from diseases,” says Halacoglu, who previously worked at the Turkish
state archives before becoming director of the historical society a
dozen years ago. “I feel very comfortable after all the research we
have done,” he says. “We are open to dialogue with anyone. We are open
to discussing if this was genocide or not,” he adds.

In fact, the Turkish government, together with the country’s largest
opposition party, recently announced that they also are open to
dialogue and would like to get Turkish and Armenian historians
together under international supervision to investigate the
issue. While the statement was welcomed by some as a step forward,
it’s not clear how far Turkey is actually willing to go and just who
the historians would be.

During an interview in his office in the parliament building in
Ankara, Sukru Elekdag, a dapper member of the opposition Republican
People’s Party (CHP) and one of the main architects of the Turkish
dialogue initiative, says civil initiatives at Turkish-Armenian
reconciliation have so far failed.

“Now, with our march to integration with Europe, this problem has
become much more acute,” says Elekdag, 80, a former ambassador to
Washington who speaks fluent English with something approaching a
Midwestern accent. “Our leaders realize it’s a problem that must be
solved.” While he proposes the joint study by Turkish and Armenian
historians as a way of solving the problem, Elekdag seems to be
already sure in whose favor the joint research will point.

“To my mind, the Armenian allegations are baseless and groundless,”
the legislator says. “When I look at this from a legal and historical
perspective, it’s almost impossible to accuse the Ottomans of
committing genocide. There had been a civil war. It was started by the
Armenians. The events of 1915 are a typical case of revolt and
betrayal.”

Ronald Suny, an Armenian American professor of political science and
history at the University of Chicago, and a co-organizer of WATS, the
annual gathering of Turkish and Armenian academics, says this is a
perpetuation of the historic Turkish position that “there was no
genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for what happened to
them. None of this is sustainable by any credible scholar.”

Despite the work being done by Turks and Armenians on bridging the
gulf between them, truly resolving their differences may hinge not on
agreeing on what happened, but, rather, if one word – “genocide” –
fits those events. In that sense, any real progress may take a long
time. As part of its work, the organizers of the Turkish- Armenian
Reconciliation Commission had the New York-based International Center
for Transitional Justice conduct a legal analysis of the applicability
of the Genocide Convention to the 1915 events. The ICTJ report
concluded that the events could be defined as “genocide,” but because
the convention could not be applied retroactively, Turkey would not be
liable for any reparations, something Ankara has long expressed fears
about having to do if it accepted the Armenian claims.

If the document was an attempt to create a conciliatory way out of the
impasse, it failed. Ustun Erguder, a Turkish political scientist who
was a member of TARC, says the association of the word “genocide” with
the barbarity of Nazi Germany makes the claim especially difficult for
Turks, even forward-thinking ones, to accept.

“I think Turks [who are dealing with the issue] have come a long way
even to say, ‘We did something wrong to the Armenians.’ Turkey is in
the process of recognizing that, but there are few historians or
intellectuals who are willing to call it genocide, although the issue
is becoming debatable in Turkey,” he says.

Agos editor Dink believes the only way forward is to continue the work
that civil society groups have begun and to increase the interaction
between Turks and Armenians. Only this, he says, can break through the
enmity that has developed over the decades. “Both sides are clinical
cases, suffering their own paranoia,” Dink says, speaking slowly and
intently. “Both need their own cure. The remedy is dialogue between
the two nations. This is the best medicine.”

‘The Jewish Lobby Helped Enormously’

In the 1970s and 1980, as Armenian lobbying efforts in the
U.S. started to raise the pressure on Turkey, Ankara began to
understand that the well-organized American Jewish lobby could act as
a counterweight to the Armenians. The Jewish organizations played
along, because the strategic value of the budding Israeli-Turkish
alliance carried more weight than the historical claims of the
Armenians.

“The Jewish lobby helped us enormously,” says parliament member Sukru
Elekdag, who was the Turkish ambassador in Washington from 1979 to
1989.

In realpolitik terms, the arrangement has worked for all
involved. Turkey gets a powerful ally in Washington. The American
Jewish community then has a useful lever to push Turkey closer toward
Israel (which has also refrained from recognizing the Armenians’
claims). Meanwhile, the implicit support of U.S. Jewish organizations
and the tacit support of Israel give moral cover to any American
administration that stops legislation recognizing the Armenian
genocide.

“To my sorrow, Israel has become Turkey’s principal partner in helping
it deny the Armenian claims,” says Yair Auron, a professor at Israel’s
Open University and author of “The Banality of Denial: Israel and the
Armenian Genocide.” While countries that have not recognized the
genocide will still send officials to commemoration events or issue
statements that use nuanced language to remember what happened without
calling it genocide, Israel refrains from doing either, Auron
says. The two times Israeli officials have made a public appearance at
a commemoration event – most notably by then- education minister Yossi
Sarid, in 2000, when he referred to what happened as “genocide” caused
strains with Ankara and led to disavowals from Jerusalem. And in 2003,
Naomi Nalbandian, an Israeli citizen of Armenian descent, was
pressured to change the text of remarks she had planned to deliver
when lighting a torch at Israel’s 55th Independence Day celebrations
at Mt. Herzl. Nalbandian was forced to delete a reference to herself
as a “third-generation survivor of the Armenian genocide carried out
in 1915.”

The person who was probably most responsible for setting this dynamic
in motion is Turkish Jewish businessman Jak Kamhi, the founder and
chairman of Profilo, a large electronics and appliance manufacturing
company. Kamhi, 80, counts various U.S. presidents and Israeli prime
ministers among his friends. Speaking in his cavernous Istanbul
office, which is furnished with toffee-colored leather chairs and
couch, Kamhi says he has helped the fight against the Armenian claims
out of a sense of duty to the memory of the Jewish victims of the
Holocaust. “[Countering] the so-called genocide is more important for
the Jews in the Diaspora and Israel than the Turks,” Kamhi says. “It
is not something you can compare to the Holocaust and the genocide
that happened in Europe. You can speak about a drama, about many other
things, but not about a genocide. That happened in Europe.”

The policy is not without its critics. Jewish lobbyists in Washington
admit that supporting Turkey in the genocide debate is an unpopular
position among many of their organizations’ members. “We get a lot of
criticism from our own members on this,” says one Jewish official, who
asked not to be named. The issue is compounded by the fact that large
Jewish and Armenian communities live side-by- side in places like New
York, Boston and Los Angeles.

“Israel committed an original sin by not explaining to Turkey from the
start that the Armenian genocide could not be negotiated as part of
their relations,” says Auron. “I really think if we had told them from
the outset that this subject is not part of the discussion regarding
our relationship, the Turks would have accepted it.” As custodian of
the memory and lessons of the Holocaust, Israel is obliged to change
course on the issue, Auron says. “You have to take a position: And the
historic and moral position is one that accepts the genocide.”

Y.S.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or
distribution is prohibited without permission.
Section:   Middle East
ISSN/ISBN:   07926049
Text Word Count   3876
Document URL:    

 © The Jerusalem Report 1999-2004 Write Us | About Us | Advertise with us |
The Archive | Privacy/Legal | Credits | Newsstand Sales

Arte/ Le monde aveugle au massacre armenien

Le Figaro, France
Mardi 13 Avril 2005

Plus d’un million de victimes ont péri dans cette tragédie dont on
commémore le 90e anniversaire

Arte/ Le monde aveugle au massacre arménien

Isabelle Courty

A quelques jours de la commémoration du quatre-vingt-dixième
anniversaire du génocide arménien, le film de Laurence Jourdan
diffusé ce soir sur Arte, paraît essentiel à la compréhension de
cette tragédie. Le 24 avril 1915 marque, en effet, le début des
massacres et des déportations qui décimeront près des deux tiers des
Arméniens de Turquie. En 1916, on compte plus d’un million de
victimes.

D’une grande clarté malgré la densité des informations, le
documentaire remonte jusqu’aux premiers massacres commis pendant les
précédentes décennies et restitue le contexte géopolitique de
l’époque. Pourquoi l’Empire ottoman a-t-il décidé de venir à bout de
ce peuple ? Quelle était la réalité sociale et politique des
chrétiens de cette région ? Quelles étapes ont conduit les
nationalistes Jeunes-Turcs à leurs déportations massives ? Réalisant
un travail considérable sur les archives (photos exclusives provenant
de fonds publics et privés, films, cartes postales…), la
réalisatrice déroule le fil de l’histoire de ce génocide.

Pour mieux saisir la réalité de la période 1915-1916, elle a eu
l’idée de se plonger dans les précieuses archives diplomatiques.
Observateurs privilégiés, les diplomates allemands et américains en
poste à l’époque témoignent de l’ampleur de la tragédie qui se
déroule sous leurs yeux. Leurs rapports sont édifiants. «Il s’agit de
rien moins que la déportation de toute la population arménienne. Il y
aurait environ 60 000 Arméniens dans cette province et environ un
million dans l’ensemble des six autres. Tous doivent être expulsés,
entreprise probablement sans précédent dans l’histoire», écrivait
Leslie Davis, consul américain à Kharpout. Comment ne pas réagir aux
lettres du consul allemand à Alep ? «L’Euphrate commence à charrier
des cadavres de plus en plus nombreux. Cette fois, ce sont
principalement des femmes et des enfants. N’y a-t-il rien à faire
pour mettre un terme à cette horreur ?» Sans doute y avait-il quelque
chose à faire. Mais la communauté internationale, plongée dans le
contexte de Première Guerre mondiale et soucieuse de ménager ses
intérêts économiques, reste sourde aux cris d’alarmes de ses
représentants. Résultat, plus d’un million de victimes. Les récits
saisissants des rares survivants ponctuent aussi le documentaire et
témoignent de la violence des massacres, les marches forcées jusque
dans le désert, les viols, l’épuisement, les maladies. Et toujours
cette question qui hante les consciences : «Quelle était notre faute

Laurence Jourdan se concen tre avec beaucoup de précision sur
l’histoire du génocide et n’évoque pas la question de sa
reconnaissance par les autres pays. Un point qu’elle a pu aborder
dans un DVD* lors d’un entretien avec l’historien et spécialiste du
sujet, Yves Ternon. Ensemble, ils reviennent sur cette question
brûlante et sur les raisons qui poussent la Turquie à refuser,
aujourd’hui encore, de reconnaître l’existence du génocide. Un film
indispensable.

* Le Génocide arménien, Edition la Compagnie des phares et balises

«LE GÉNOCIDE ARMÉNIEN», Arte, 20 h 45

ANKARA: Halacoglu: Armenian issue a ‘matter of honor’ for Turkey

Journal of Turkis weekly
April 13 2005

Halacoglu: Armenian issue a ‘matter of honor’ for Turkey
The New Anatolian / Ankara

‘This is an issue that concerns whether or not to take responsibility
for a shameful act of inhumanity. I won’t accuse my grandfather of
being a villain for a crime he didn’t commit,’ says Halacoglu

While the April 24 date for the commemoration of the so-called
genocide anniversary approaches, Turkey is preparing a counterattack
against rising Armenians efforts for the recognition of their claims.

In support of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s worldwide “letter
campaign,” demanding apologies from countries that used the “Blue
Book” as a reference in recognizing the Armenians’ claims, the
Turkish Historical Society (TTK) declared that it would publish three
books dealing with the issue from the Turkish perspective.

TTK Chairman Yusuf Halacoglu released a declaration yesterday saying
that the TTK’s Armenian Research Desk, after making detailed
scientific investigations, would publish three books. He listed the
books as, “Deaths Caused by Epidemic Diseases, 1914-18,” “The
Tricolor Over the Taurus, 1918-1922,” and “The Armenian Events in
French Diplomatic Documents, Vol. 1.’

Halacoglu also gave a lecture at Cankaya University on the so-called
Armenian genocide and Turkey’s archival documents.

Stating that history should depend on documents and verifiable
sources, Halacoglu said, “Frivolous comments are nothing but
fantasies.” He also described the Armenians’ claims as a very
sensitive issue for Turkey.

“Turkey has Armenian citizens at home and abroad,” He said. “I
cleanse them of guilt. It is just a few associations that have
brought the issue to its present state.”

Halacoglu noted that not only the Ottoman Empire but other countries
had gone through such tragedies during the world wars.

Halacoglu stated that 5.5 million people migrated from the Balkans
and Caucasian regions to Anatolia during World War II. He also added
that 2.5 million people died due to diseases and raids during these
migrations.

“This was a war,” said Halacoglu, “You should expect anything to
happen in a war that is seen to benefit either warring side. If these
were countries fighting, it would be acceptable, but things get
distorted when the actions are done by civilians against other
citizens. The Ottomans were unable to take precautions against such
actions.”

Halacoglu rejected the claim that “1.5 million Armenians were
killed.”

“This claim entails that all Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire
were killed and then some,’ he said. “According to the population
census in 1914, there were some 1.3 millions Armenians living in
Ottoman lands. American historian Justin McCarthy sets the number at
somewhere near 1.69 million. It’s claimed that 1 million Armenians
emigrated. If 1 million Armenians emigrated then nobody is supposed
to have gone to Caucasia. However, there are documents proving that
450,000 Armenians migrated to Caucasia voluntarily.’

‘A matter of honor’

Professor Halacoglu also described the genocide claims as “a matter
of honor.”

“This is an issue that concerns whether or not to take responsibility
for a shameful act of inhumanity,” he said. “I won’t accuse my
grandfather of being a villain for a crime he didn’t commit.”

Halacoglu will hold a press conference to discuss the new studies on
Friday.

The New Anatolian

Azerbaijan, Pakistani leaders agree to promote economic ties

Azerbaijan, Pakistani leaders agree to promote economic ties

AP Worldstream;
Apr 12, 2005

Azerbaijan’s president met with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez
Musharraf on Tuesday, and the two sides agreed to enhance economic
cooperation, the state-run news agency reported.

Ilham Aliev held talks with Musharraf shortly after arriving in the
Pakistani capital, Islamabad, for a three-day visit, the Associated
Press of Pakistan said.

“They agreed on stepping up contacts between business communities of
the two countries as part of joint endeavors to promote trade and
economic ties to mutual benefit,” APP said.

Musharraf said Pakistan backed Azerbaijan in its dispute with Armenia
over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been under ethnic
Armenian control since a war ended in 1994 without a political
settlement.

Pakistan and Azerbaijan also called for promoting visits by lawmakers
to each other’s countries while also increasing people-to-people
contacts, APP said.

Aliev also met with Chaudhry Ameer Hussain, the speaker of the
National Assembly, Pakistan’s lower house of Parliament.

He is scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and other
senior government officials on Wednesday to sign agreements for
cooperation in communications, information technology, finance,
education and culture, the Foreign Ministry said Monday in a
statement.

ANKARA: Armenia asks Turkey to allow flights between Antalya, Yereva

Armenia asks Turkey to allow flights between Antalya, Yerevan

The New Anatolian / Ankara
7 April 2005

Amid increasing tension between Turkey and Armenia due to continued
efforts by Armenians to urge world recognition of the so-called
Armenian genocide claims, Armenia yesterday asked Ankara to allow
flights between Antalya and the capital Yerevan.

Private Armenian airline Armavia currently has flights between
Yerevan and Istanbul twice a week, and asked permission to add a
Yerevan-Antalya route.

Antalya is the nearest vacation destination for Armenians, and those
who choose to come to Turkey on holiday can stay in Turkey for up to
one month by paying only $10 at the point of entry to the country. The
number of visiting Armenians is now 20,000 during the winter, reaching
50,000 during the summer.

Foreign Ministry examines request

The Foreign Ministry is considering the Armenian request to begin
flights between Antalya and Yerevan. If approved, the flights will
begin this year.

Turkey also permits Armenian planes to use Turkish airspace.

Turks In Search Of ‘Armenian’ Well-Wishers

TURKS IN SEARCH OF ‘ARMENIAN’ WELL-WISHERS

Azg/arm
6 April 05

The Turks get more and more concerned as days bring us nearer to the
90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Their countermeasures fall
off hitting new initiatives directed to recognition of the Armenian
Genocide and reveal how groundless their negation is. Given this
situation, Turks can do nothing but cling to “Armenian” well-wishers.
Such appears to be Edward Tasc?n, head of the Department on Public
Relations of the Federation of Turkish-American Unions.

Turkish Miliet newspaper wrote on March 31: “New Yorker Edward
Tasc?n is an Armenian-born friend of Turkey who struggled against
the allegations of the Armenian genocide all his life. He has so far
written many letters to those scientific, political, religious figures
in American who back Armenians’ allegations. Each year he takes part
at the Days of Turkey in New York and proudly waves the Turkish flag”.

According to Miliet, Edward Tasc?n was an honored man in the Turkish
diplomatic circles in New York and Washington since 1960s. He was
born in the US to an Armenian family from Turkey. Though he has no
children, he continuously repeats: “My family is the Turkish nation
counting 70 million”. Besides, he willed to be buried in Turkey.

Miliet wrote that Tasc?n responded to the Armenian Genocide allegations
with a book waiting soon to be put for sale titled “They Call Me Friend
of Turkey. Armenians’ Allegations and Necessity to Tell the Truth”.

By Hakob Chakrian