Will the Death of Journalist Open the Door to Conciliation?
On Friday January 19, Hrant Dink was killed outside the offices of his newspaper, Agos in Istanbul. Dink was a Turk of Armenian decent and a critic of Turkey’s official disavowal of the World War I era Armenian Genocide.
The Ottoman Empire took the initiative of clearing Armenian influence from its empire. A large population of Armenian were removed from Anatolia and placed in the deserts of what is now Syria and Turkey. Many of these Armenians were killed en route; some died of starvation in the concentration camps in the deserts while others were merely taken out of the camps and shot.
While the estimates of deaths differ, Efraim and Inari Karsh, in their book Empires of the Sand say all estimates, “paint a stark picture of a national annihilation of unprecedented proportions.” The British Parliamentary Report of 1916 places the number slain at 600,000 and deported at 600,000. Meanwhile, the Protestant Mission in the Ottoman Empire places the number uprooted to 1,396,000 (600,000 killed, 796,000 deported).
The Turkish government has long denied that genocide happened or that if death and deportation happened it should not be called genocide. “Nationalists consider such statements an insult to Turkey's honor and a threat to its unity.” Those that speak out to define the actions of genocide are often threatened and scorned. Mr. Dink was no different. He often received threats and complaints. Yet, he continued to work to get the Turkish government to accept the history of the situation.
The fact that the Mr. Dink’s presumed killer is a teenager tells much to the observer. The young are often recklessly idealistic. They are also less attuned to the nuances of issues. Therefore the teenager perhaps was strongly offended by Mr. Dink’s attack upon Turkey’s National Myth.
Unfortunately, the Turkish national myth is tied in with the end of the First World War. Prior to the World War I, Turkey as a nation-state did not exist. Instead, an imperial regime with the Sultan at its head stood in Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire nominally held North Africa and most of what we know of as the Middle East and the Balkans.
But, as the war ended sections of the Ottoman Empire were lopped off. First the Balkan states, then Arab States, then North Africa – all that remained was what we now know of as Turkey. And, the new Turkish state defined itself as Turk –exclusively. This has led to its problems with the Kurds whom the Turkish myth refers to as “Mountain Turks.” It is in this national myth that the Turkish nationalists find problems with admitting the Armenian genocide existed. The new Turkey is not one that would commit such a genocide; therefore, one must say it did not exist.
However, I find this an error in thought. The genocide was, in deed, not committed by the Turkish state. It was committed by the Ottoman state. The current Turkish state should not be held responsible even for the actions of its forefathers in the 30s and 40s, much less that of the Ottoman Empire almost 100 years ago.
It is in this sense that both Turks and Armenians should look to find a middle ground. Armenians should know and understand that the Turkey of today is not the same state that committed the horrible atrocities. Much of the Turkish government looks to making forward progress and liberal rights inside the nation-state, especially as it seeks membership into the European Union.
Turks cannot continue to ignore the existence of such a genocide, but should accept it as the tragedy of the past it is. It should become a rallying cry for the Turkish state. This type of act is what separates the Turkish nation-state from the imperial, weak multiethnic state of the sultans.
Unfortunately, it is not that easy. An acceptance of this crime could lead to demands of recognition of similar, if not as horrific, crimes committed by the Turkish nation-state, specifically in Kurdistan. But, it could lead to one small step in solving the Turkish state’s overarching issues of legitimacy, not only with ethnic Armenians but with world opinion and the European Union.
The Ottoman Empire took the initiative of clearing Armenian influence from its empire. A large population of Armenian were removed from Anatolia and placed in the deserts of what is now Syria and Turkey. Many of these Armenians were killed en route; some died of starvation in the concentration camps in the deserts while others were merely taken out of the camps and shot.
While the estimates of deaths differ, Efraim and Inari Karsh, in their book Empires of the Sand say all estimates, “paint a stark picture of a national annihilation of unprecedented proportions.” The British Parliamentary Report of 1916 places the number slain at 600,000 and deported at 600,000. Meanwhile, the Protestant Mission in the Ottoman Empire places the number uprooted to 1,396,000 (600,000 killed, 796,000 deported).
The Turkish government has long denied that genocide happened or that if death and deportation happened it should not be called genocide. “Nationalists consider such statements an insult to Turkey's honor and a threat to its unity.” Those that speak out to define the actions of genocide are often threatened and scorned. Mr. Dink was no different. He often received threats and complaints. Yet, he continued to work to get the Turkish government to accept the history of the situation.
The fact that the Mr. Dink’s presumed killer is a teenager tells much to the observer. The young are often recklessly idealistic. They are also less attuned to the nuances of issues. Therefore the teenager perhaps was strongly offended by Mr. Dink’s attack upon Turkey’s National Myth.
Unfortunately, the Turkish national myth is tied in with the end of the First World War. Prior to the World War I, Turkey as a nation-state did not exist. Instead, an imperial regime with the Sultan at its head stood in Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire nominally held North Africa and most of what we know of as the Middle East and the Balkans.
But, as the war ended sections of the Ottoman Empire were lopped off. First the Balkan states, then Arab States, then North Africa – all that remained was what we now know of as Turkey. And, the new Turkish state defined itself as Turk –exclusively. This has led to its problems with the Kurds whom the Turkish myth refers to as “Mountain Turks.” It is in this national myth that the Turkish nationalists find problems with admitting the Armenian genocide existed. The new Turkey is not one that would commit such a genocide; therefore, one must say it did not exist.
However, I find this an error in thought. The genocide was, in deed, not committed by the Turkish state. It was committed by the Ottoman state. The current Turkish state should not be held responsible even for the actions of its forefathers in the 30s and 40s, much less that of the Ottoman Empire almost 100 years ago.
It is in this sense that both Turks and Armenians should look to find a middle ground. Armenians should know and understand that the Turkey of today is not the same state that committed the horrible atrocities. Much of the Turkish government looks to making forward progress and liberal rights inside the nation-state, especially as it seeks membership into the European Union.
Turks cannot continue to ignore the existence of such a genocide, but should accept it as the tragedy of the past it is. It should become a rallying cry for the Turkish state. This type of act is what separates the Turkish nation-state from the imperial, weak multiethnic state of the sultans.
Unfortunately, it is not that easy. An acceptance of this crime could lead to demands of recognition of similar, if not as horrific, crimes committed by the Turkish nation-state, specifically in Kurdistan. But, it could lead to one small step in solving the Turkish state’s overarching issues of legitimacy, not only with ethnic Armenians but with world opinion and the European Union.
posted by Eucleides of America at 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home