The Armenian Weekly
April 2010 Magazine
In the discussions surrounding the Turkish-Armenian protocols that have taken place throughout the last year, there has been a disappointing, yet hardly unforeseeable, tendency to oversimplify matters and draw a clear-cut picture with “practical,” pro-protocols Armenians on one side, and “hawkish” diaspora “fanatics” who are dead-set against the protocols and any normalization with Turkey on the other side. We can see this as a minor refinement of the well-worn discourse of the Bad Armenians and the Good Armenians that we have come to know and some have come to love, or at least to make good use of.
As the Turkish scholar Taner Akcam has aptly described this discourse:
According to the defensive strategies developed by our intellectuals, the ‘bad’ Armenians aren’t the ones in Turkey or the ones in neighboring Armenia. The ‘bad’ Armenians are the ones in the diaspora because the ones who keep ‘insisting on recognition of the genocide’ are actually they. In other words, instead of directly stating that the problem has to do with defining Armenians as ‘the bogeyman’ and ‘bad,’ they accepted those definitions but changed the object of those definitions; instead of saying Armenians are ‘bad,’ they stated that the diaspora is ‘bad.’ In conclusion, the mentality that predominates in Turkey continued unabated in our intellectuals and continues to do so.1
In recent discussions, it is the critics of the protocols who have become the “bad” Armenians, then, and interestingly enough, some Armenians who had previously been lumped into the “bad” category because of their emphasis on genocide recognition as such now find themselves, due to their support of the protocols, transformed (perhaps only temporarily) into “good” Armenians.
This leads us to Kerem Oktem’s article “The Armenia-Turkey process: don’t stop now” on OpenDemocracy, which was in turn a response to articles by Vicken Cheterian and Juan Gabriel Tokatlian.2
It is interesting to note that while Oktem rightly decries a reductionist understanding of “the highly cosmopolitan Armenian diaspora” as a univocal entity when, in fact, there is on the protocols, as on other issues, a wide array of opinions (both pro- and con- as well as within the pro- and con- “camps”), he seems to fall into the hardly less reductionist trap of equating those who oppose the protocols with those who oppose any normalization, of presenting those who oppose the protocols as a nationalists and those who support them as humanists. In other words, we have not really moved beyond the categories of Bad Armenians and Good Armenians—we have just done some rebranding.
In the former category, clearly, Oktem has placed the political party the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), which has been vocally opposed to the protocols. Oktem writes of the ARF that “it has become trapped in the cage of an old-fashioned, if virulent nationalism: retribution, compensation, and transfer of land to Armenia are central to its vocabulary.” He contrasts this with the “humanist organizations” the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU), the dioceses of the Armenian Churches of America, and the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA)—groups that support “normalization” even though genocide recognition “might be the first casualty.” He does not define what he means by a “humanist” organization.
What is at issue here is not these organizations per se or the merits of their respective approaches to the protocols as such (or to other issues), but rather how they are being depicted and deployed to suit a version of the Good Armenian/Bad Armenian discourse. The Armenian Assembly, in particular, is regularly grouped with the Bad Armenians due to its long record of working for genocide recognition and lobbying for the U.S. to pass resolutions affirming the genocide—work that it shows no signs of abandoning and that has long been the sine qua non of the Bad Armenian.
It is true that to support the protocols is to support “normalization,” at least as it is defined by the protocols. But it does not follow that to oppose the protocols is necessarily to oppose any sort of normalization, unless one believes that the protocols represent the only possible route to normalization. Oktem also appears to lump together all critics of the protocols as virulent nationalists—which is barely an improvement on lumping together the entire diaspora as Bad Armenians. It is no wonder, then, that he cannot reconcile the fact that “serious observers such as Juan Gabriel Tokatlian and Vicken Cheterian” also take a stance against the protocols. It seems he simply cannot imagine any “serious” critique of the protocols, any critique that is not rooted in “virulent nationalism.”
But there is an obvious solution to his confusion: Just as there are people and organizations who support the protocols more or less uncritically and those who support them with serious reservations, so, too, are there people and organizations who are in favor of normalization but who oppose the protocols either in whole or in part for one or more of a variety of reasons—that is to say, it may be that their concerns about this or that aspect of the protocols are so strong that they cannot support them. Is it so inconceivable that a “serious observer” might hold such a view?
Furthermore, it is fair to say that one “political persuasion” (read: Dashnak) is more uniformly critical of the protocols, but it does not follow that all who are critical are of the same political persuasion; some, in fact, have close connections with organizations that have publicly stated their support for the protocols, and many (most?) have no political or organizational ties or loyalties whatsoever. Some critics, as should be obvious, are not Armenian.
Nonetheless, Oktem crafts a sharp distinction between the “nationalist” Armenians who oppose the protocols mainly because they hamper genocide recognition and the “humanist” Armenians who support the protocols even though it means sacrificing genocide recognition. Yet the ABGU and the other organizations that issued a joint public statement said clearly that they do not support the protocols at the expense of genocide recognition—declaring that there “should be no question that we also continue to stand firmly with the Nagorno Karabakh Republic to ensure its freedom and security as well as with all those working for universal affirmation of the Armenian Genocide.”3
Oktem concludes that opposition to the protocols is motivated by fear among those who “have long used the genocide to scare critical minds into conformity, to rule over their flocks as they pleased, and to claim the right to speak in their name” that they will lose their power. He does not seem to consider other things that would cause reasonable people not to support the protocols. For example, as he himself says, “The joint historical commission, which the second protocol proposes, is indeed a bad compromise, if not a complete sell-out.” Would it not be a reasonable or “serious” stance to advocate normalization without such a “bad compromise”? For some, clearly, the proposed commission is too high a price to pay, for reasons that have been well expressed by Roger Smith among others.4 Is such a stance incomprehensible and incompatible with “serious” thinking?
It is striking how similar some of Oktem’s points are to those in a column by Cengiz Aktar in Hurriyet entitled “The Armenian Initiative and the Hrant Dink Case,” in which he nearly proclaims the end of nationalism in Turkey.5 Aktar, one of the initiators of the 2008 “apology campaign,” also observes that “[o]wing to the protocols, differences have surfaced within the diaspora—clear evidence that it never was a monolithic entity.” Evidently, if nothing else, we have the protocols to thank for this breakthrough in perception. However, “Within the diaspora, there are a limited number of people who are making a lot of noise. They do not care about the future of the Armenian Republic, make unrealistic demands and claim that it sold out the diaspora.” It is self-evident, apparently, that anyone who is critical of the protocols must “not care about the future of Armenia.”
Aktar, too, contrasts the “unrealistic,” “uncaring” noisemakers with “a silent majority that is calm and sober enough to grasp the importance of the protocols,” which he identifies with the AGBU. He does not, of course, say how he knows it is a silent majority.
Aktar then gives a short quote from the statement from the AGBU Central Board of Directors: “[The protocols] mark a significant moment in the history of relations between the Armenian and Turkish peoples. It presents major ramifications for both the government of the newly independent Republic of Armenia and the Armenian nation worldwide.”
There is nothing controversial in these words. They state the obvious: The protocols are “significant” and present “major ramifications.” Such language could derive from either a declaration in favor of the protocols or one against them. There is no dispute over whether the protocols are “significant” or present “major ramifications.” The dispute is over what the significance is and what the ramifications are.
It is revealing to read the entire AGBU statement in the context of the sharp “nationalist” vs. “humanist” distinction that has been drawn (see the AGBU statement here: www.agbu.org/pressoffice/article.asp?ID=626).
For example, after favorably noting the “pragmatic policy [of the Armenian government] in its negotiations with Turkey,” it goes on to state: “However, as practical as such a policy may be, it should not be implemented at the expense of the inalienable rights of the Armenian people. We believe the authorities in Armenia, as administrators of the state, must be guided by the same pan-national goals and aspirations in making these difficult and far-reaching decisions. The documents establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey touch directly or indirectly upon the Armenian Genocide and our territorial demands. While we understand the importance for the Republic of Armenia to have normal diplomatic relations with neighboring countries, including Turkey, we believe that the inviolable Armenian Case in its broadest sense and the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide should transcend any diplomatic consideration” (emphasis mine).
And then towards the end: “AGBU unwaveringly adheres to its national policy of supporting the homeland and safeguarding the inviolable rights of the Armenian nation, and its historical, material and cultural legacy” (emphasis mine).
If such language as appears in bold above were used in a statement against the protocols, would the “humanist” tag be stripped away and replaced with the label “old-fashioned, if virulent nationalism”? Or should one assume that Aktar and Oktem are fully in support of these aspects of the statement?
It is interesting to see how organizations that have hitherto mostly been lumped together as part of the powerful, nationalistic Armenian Diaspora lobbying machine are now being distinguished among. Noisy nationalists over here! Sober humanists over there! Oktem asks the rhetorical question, “Is it possible that the highly cosmopolitan Armenian diaspora, in 2009, can or would speak with a single voice?” He answers with a resounding “No!” But the more complete inferred answer from both his and Aktar’s commentaries appears to be “No! It speaks with two voices!” An optimist might view that as an improvement of 100 percent!
It appears that, within the current revised Good Armenian/Bad Armenian schematic, if you support the protocols and talk about “the inalienable rights of the Armenian people” you are a “humanist.” But if you do not support them and talk about “the inalienable rights of the entire Armenian Nation” you are a “nationalist.”6
You are a “humanist” if you support the protocols and say “we understand the importance for the Republic of Armenia to have normal diplomatic relations with neighboring countries, including Turkey, we believe that the inviolable Armenian Case in its broadest sense and the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide should transcend any diplomatic consideration.” But you are a “nationalist” if you do not support the protocols and say, “As neighboring states, Armenia and Turkey are bound to take steps to normalize relations [but] neighborly relations can be established between the two countries only when Turkey recognizes the Armenian Genocide and reestablishes the rights of the Armenian people.”7
If you support the protocols, it is “humanistic” to refer to “the inviolable rights of the Armenian nation.” But it if you do not support the protocols, it is “nationalistic” to refer to “the unwavering rights of the Armenian people.”8
And there is “humanism” in “our territorial demands” if you support the protocols, but “nationalism” if you oppose the protocols and mention “the dispossession of Western Armenia.”9
Again, this is not about the AGBU, ARF, AAA, Armenian National Committee, etc. The point to be made is not that the so-called “nationalists” are really “humanists,” or the so-called “humanists” are really “nationalists.”
The point to be made is about how problematic it is to divide up Armenians along such lines. It is about recognizing a trap that is part of the legacy of imperialism. The Romans had a name for it: Divide et impera.
***
Endnotes
1. Taner Akcam, “Armenia, diaspora, and facing history,” The Armenian Reporter, posted Nov. 28, 2008 on www.reporter.am/go/article/2008-11-28-armenia-diaspora-and-facing-history.
2. Kerem Oktem, “The Armenia-Turkey process: don’t stop now,” posted Oct. 14, 2009 on www.opendemocracy.net/article/armenia/the-armenia-turkey-process-don-t-stop-now. Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, “Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide,” posted Oct. 12, 2009 on www.opendemocracy.net/article/armenia/armenia-and-turkey-forgetting-genocide. Vicken Cheterian, “Armenia-Turkey: genocide, blockade, diplomacy,” posted Oct. 13, 2009 on www.opendemocracy.net/article/armenia/armenia-turkey-genocide-blockade-diplomacy.
3. “Joint statement of major Armenian-American institutions welcoming the president of the Republic of Armenia,” posted Oct. 1, 2009 on www.aaainc.org/index.php?id=755.
4. Roger Smith, “The Politics of Genocide and the Turkey-Armenia Protocols,” The Armenian Weekly, posted Oct. 24, 2009 on www.armenianweekly.com/2009/10/24/smith-the-politics-of-genocide-and-the-turkey-armenia-protocols/.
5. Posted Oct. 16, 2009 on www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=initiative-towards-armenia-and-the-hrant-dink-murder-case-2009-10-16.
6. “ARF-ER Issues Statement After Meeting with Sarkisian in New York,” Asbarez, posted Oct. 4, 2009 on www.asbarez.com/71458/arf-er-issues-statement-after-meeting-with-sarkisian-in-new-york/.
7. “ARF Bureau Issues Announcement on Protocols,” The Armenian Weekly, posted Sept. 2, 2009 on www.armenianweekly.com/2009/09/02/arf-bureau-issues-announcement-on-protocols/.
8. Ibid.
9. “ARF-ER Issues Statement After Meeting with Sarkisian in New York,” Asbarez, posted Oct. 4, 2009.
Marc Mamigonian
What is most troubling is when you read the animosity from the Turkish side towards Armenians.
Like it will never go away.
Thank you Mr. Mamigonian for pouting out the trap of Divide et impera.
Genocidal-Turkey and Turks are not a position to lecture others on human rights, freedom, justice and democracy.
Genocide acknowledgment without accountability is hollow and meaningless.
Just because an Armenian demands the return of lands that Turkey illegally took away from Armenians by way of genocide does not make an Armenian a nationalist.
Just because an Armenian demands reparations for the property taken away from Armenians by way of genocide (houses, farms, schools, businesses, colleges, buildings, personal property and personal wealth) does not make an Armenian a nationalist.
Also, just because an Armenian demands restitution for the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage by way of genocide (historical sites, fortresses, monuments, cities, towns, churches and monasteries) does not make an Armenian a nationalist.
And, just because an Armenian demands the return of the territories of the first Armenian republic (1918-20) – then recognized by the US, UK, France, and Japan – that Mustafa Kemal attacked continuing with the genocide where the Young Turks left off, does not make an Armenian a nationalist.
And finally, just because an Armenian demands the return of Nakhichevan and Artzakh which was part of Armenia when it joined the Soviet Union, and only separated from Armenia in 1921 due to Genocidal-Turkey’s insistence of Stalin, does not make an Armenian a nationalist.
And just because an Armenian demands justice for the two million lives that were brutally taken away from us by genocidal-Turks does not make an Armenian a nationalist.
Just because an Armenian rejects the protocols-trap by genocidal-Turkey with its on-going genocide (1915-2010) by imposing a hostile border blockade, forcing over 1 million Armenians to leave Armenia seeking economic survival in foreign lands – does not make an Armenian a nationalist.
Genocide is a crime that has no statutory llimitations. The moral, personal, psychological, and political impact does not dimish with the passage of time. Is the Armenian diaspora “bad” for keeping the genocide issue alive for 95 years?
Dear Marc Mamigonian,
Maybe we can start a discussion on these questions on the Armenian Weekly web-pages, as I believe that you got some of my points wrong and misrepresented the gist of my argument. It goes without saying that your suggestion that I have become an executor of ‘Divide and Rule’ politics says more about your own sense of vulnerability than about my political views.
1. I do agree with you that the distinction between good and bad Armenians is highly problematic and I apologise if I have fallen into this trap. I also believe, however, that I do have a right to criticise ARF policies without being labeled a collaborator of Turkish government policies. What’s the point of any dialogue if criticism is answered with ad-hominem arguments?
2. My view on the role of the ARF and the ‘Stop the Protocols Campaign’ is based above all on the website of the campaign, which -when I read it- was suffused with a belligerent language of retribution and aggressive nationalism out of tune with the 21st century (though mirroring some Turkish nationalist websites). You may challenge me on the fact that I have relied on the this particular source, but after all, this was the official outlet of the campaign, and my description of its outlook and language is accurate. This is not to say that I equate Turkish and Armenian nationalisms and gloss over the victim/perpetrator divide. I do not.
3. Your critique would have been more convincing had you mentioned the following argument, which I expressed very clearly in the article and which is why I wrote it in the first place: The Protocols are ‘real-politik’ at its best, and the current Turkish government has a tendency to use all such ‘real-politik’ instruments to defer the agenda of genocide recognition. The ‘Joint History Commission’ is a sham and will either never take of or be dissolved eventually. All this is unfortunate and not what I would be hoping for in terms of government action.
My argument is, however, that once the borders are open, once more Turks and Armenians can talk to each other, and as I say clearly, once more Turks visit the genocide memorial in Yerewan, societal processes will facilitate the conditions of change. Do not underestimate the impact on Turks visiting Tsitsernakaberd. Or the impact on liberal Turkish activists visiting Armenia (and vice versa).
I do believe that it is the Armenian and Turkish people who have to face their tragic history together (and then hopefully move on) if in different ways as the descendants of victims and perpetrators. Even though also these categories are problematic and often become insufficient when real individuals meet each other. I.e. a Kurdish tribesman, whose grandfather was at the forefront of the genocidal killings might have lost half his family during the Kurdish War of the 1990s. All these personal histories are messy and need to be addressed by real people. Official recognition can help, but many activists in Turkey and people like myself, prefer to do whatever it takes before waiting for official Turkey to make a move. And there is a reason to this insistence on civil society and public debate as the prime site for recognition.
Turkey has a relentless and unforgiving state. Armenians, Turks, Kurds, Assyrians, Alevis, Socialists…. They have all been subjected to state violence and oppression over the last century.
The bottom line is : Do you seek genocide recognition from a Turkish state that is still caught in the mindset and policies of 1915 in its daily politics? Or do you support societal change (and even join forces with activists) in Turkey that will one day result in a thorough reckoning not only with the genocide but with a century of violence against ‘Others’? The choice is between an official act of recognition that may satisfy the ARF but will have little impact on how the country operates and the prospect of a Turkey that faces its past (and this, without doubt includes genocide recognition), and can be home again for Armenians and other communities, who were expelled and prosecuted. You choose.
Once again Marc has written an important and insightful article for the Armenian Weekly! The only comment I would add is that the view that Armenians must “give up” something in order to simply have such an agreement with Turkey is the same old racism that has existed for centuries and continues to view Armenians has less than human and unworthy to be treated as equals with Turkey and Turks. Worse, when one fights this racism, they are the ones branded “nationalist”. Students of history will understand that such views have their origins over 100 years ago.
Mr. Oktem,
It is refreshing to hear a more truthful and constructive point of view for a change but understand for centuries the Armenians had to carry the great heavy yoke placed upon them against their will by successive Turkish regimes. Whether the Sultan system or the genocidal “young Turks” or even the new incarnation of the Republic of Turkey all have been a great burden that the Armenians had to carry. All have been unfriendly and all have been a danger to the very existence to Armenians themselves which still continues to this day. To further put the burden on the Armenians to somehow be “responsible” for the change required within Turkey to come to terms with it’s horrible past is fantasy at best and only further puts the heavy yoke on the wrong shoulders. The Armenians were not equal partners in history but rather victims of racist opportunistic mentality that continues today. The “dreaded” Dashnaks looking back, were the only intelligent group as they took up arms to defend themselves while every other Armenian who stayed “loyal” was eventually murdered. So please excuse the Armenians who have looked squarely at history and have no trust of Turks or their intentions. If the Turks themselves can’t change the denialist mindset how can the “boogieman traitor Armenians”, as taught to your youth, supposed to change that? There can be no real peace without acknowledgement and justice or any border opening will truly be hollow and believe me history will and does repeat itself.
Mr. Oktem,
Any communication between Armenians and Turks is better than no communication, and should be welcomed. I commend you at the least for your courage to accept the truth of what has happened to the Armenians by the hands of the Turks. However, even you are instinctually leaning towards a softer way out for Turkey. You are supporting the idea of reopening the borders and giving the two nations an opportunity to intermingle and understand each other’s pain, etc. I do not need to remind you that the borders were closed by “Turkey” to retaliate for the fact that Nagorno Karabagh did not succumb to the ethnic cleansing that the Azeris had planned for it, and to the shock of everyone not only survived the Azeri attack but it also won the war. Would have Turkey boycotted Azerbaijan had Azerbaijan succeeded in ethnically cleansing the Armenians? Turkey is not only punishing Armenia because Karabagh, a historically Armenian land given to Azerbaijan by Stalin, wants its independence, but it is using this pretext to destroy Armenia’s chance to stand on its feet, and is forcing the Armenian population to emigrate. No court gives the perpetrator of a crime the chance to get to know his victims and the opportunity to understand the victim’s pains unless the perpetrator acknowledges his crime and apologizes for it. No court allows the perpetrator of a criminal act to exonerate himself by criticizing and putting the blame on the victim. There will be no honest starting point, unless the crime is accepted and addressed. How can anyone invite the murderer of his family into his home, when the murderer has not redeemed himself? It is simply “scary”. Turkey needs to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, pay reparations, return lands simply because all of the above were illegal acts that need to be punished and addressed, period. The closing of the borders, the language of the protocols, and the threatening of countries who are recognizing the Genocide are crystal clear testimonials of the fact that Turkey has not veered an inch from its mission to destroy the Armenian people and its history. Why is a “historical commission” even mentioned in the Protocols, whose objective was to reopen borders and normalize relations, if according to Turkey the borders were closed in solidarity to Azerbaijan over the “Karabagh” issue. The closing of the borders itself is illegal. No one knows the Turks better than the Dashnaks. For years, the Dashnaks tried to get equal rights for the Armenians by trying to work with the Turks, and for years they were lied to, ambushed and duped. If it were not for humane Turks and the self defense of the Dashnaks, there would be no Armenia today. There is zero trust in Turkey, because the Turkish government has shown zero remorse for the killing of 1.5 million regular citizens and the stealing of their properties and lands, and there is zero evidence that Turkey has changed its policy vis a vis Armenians. All there is on the table is more crushing concessions being imposed on the Armenians, reminiscent of the humiliating laws imposed on them in the days of the Ottoman Empire, like cruel taxation, no representation in courts, no right to sue a Muslim, rapes, and massacres galore. Yes there are reasonable and intellectual Turkish minds such as yourself trying to do the right thing, however, the elephant in the room is that in the mean time a huge crime is still going unpunished. You do a wrong, you pay for it. You do not dance around, and take the time to destroy evidence, and bank on people forgetting what has happened. The denial and cover up are not only by themselves illegal, inhumane and cruel, they are also the continuation of the Genocide.
K, I agree with your straightforward, pull no punches, comments to Oktem. I especially agree with the tendency of many Turks to dilute responsibility and than ask Armenia to “go the distance” toward normalization without first providing an admission of guilt and offers of reconciliation. First things first. I am sure that Armenia will be willing to make concessions in a gesture of forgiveness and to promote peace, once verifiable security and some semblance of good will can be established. But I doubt this can happen if Turkey doesn’t first “come clean.”
Oops, I need to clarify my comment above which was poorly phrased: I meant to say that I agree that there is a tendency among many Turks to dilute responsibility…..etc., not that I agree with the tendency.
ALL SAID,FEW IF NAY HAVE DWELT UPON ONE MAJOR ISSUE,WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF A PEOPLE TO FIGHT FOR ITS TOTAL FREEDOM.WHETHER UNDER TURKISH -OTTOMAN RULE OR OTHER..
ARMENIANS IN THIS RESPECT SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT TO PERSONS LIKE OTKTEM THAT SIMILAR OCCURRANCES ARE THERE TO BE TAKEN INTO VIEW.SUCH AS:-
NORTH AFRICAN KHALIPOHATES INVADED CONQUERED AND RIULED FOR OVER 600 YRS OVER THE IBERIAN(Spain mainly)PENINSULA…THEN A SPANISH PRINCESS UNITED THE SPANISH PRINCES-IN SECRET MEETINGS AND GOT WELL ARMED AND DROVE THE INVADERS OUT!!!!
If Aarmenians did not come close to that and succeed,it does not mean that ARMENIANS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK TO THAT END.WE DID HOWEVER LIBERATE IN 1918 WHATEVER WAS POSSIBLE PLUS RECENTLY NK OUR ARTSAKH.TURKS MUST BE INTRODUCED TO SUCH OTHER NATIONS´HISTORIES AS WELL AND COMPREHEND THAT ALL TALK-DISCUSSION HERE IS NOT ONLY GENOCIDE RECOGNITION-A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR US ARMENIANS- BUT ALSO OUR RIGHT TO HAVE OUR INTEGRITY RESTORED AS A NATION/STATE.
KURDS ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BY AND BY WROK TOWARDS THAT AND IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME THAT THIS WILL ALSO POP UP TO THE CHAGRIN OF THE PRESENT RULERS OF GREAT TURKEY…THEY KNOW IT.
ALL ELSE CAN BE WORKED -EVEN IN THEIR FASHION,I.E. BY AND BY…
Who did not revolt against the Ottman Turks?
The Greeks revolted; the Bulgarians revolted; the Romanians revolted; Ukrainian threw the Turks out; the Serbs revolted; the Croats revolted; the Slavs revolted; the Albanians revolted. Hmm, the Arabs revolted in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa.
Even the “Young Turks” revolted against the Ottoman Sultan.
So what if Armenians revolted?
Turkey sided with Germany in World War I against the allies. Turkey remianed neutral in WWII and tacitly fsupported Nazi Germany, and only switched sides at the end of the war, when it became apparent that Nazi Germany was losing.
Turks living in the Russian Empire rebelled and revolted against the Russians and sided with Ottoman Turkish Sultanate.
Boyajian and Shantagizoum you are right on.This is another point Mr. Oktem can give us a Turkish prospective on. How is it that Turkey is behaving very democratically vis a vis all the other countries that broke away from the falling Ottoman Empire. How is it that Turkey recognizes the sovereignty of Bulgaria, Serbia, Syria, Lebanon, now Israel etc., holds no grudge against these countries, does not call them traitors, Nationalists, liars etc but cannot handle the idea of a returned Western Armenia, a free Republic of Armenia and an independent Karabagh? Turkish commenters on this site have pointed out that Western Armenia was ruled by them for 600 yrs therefore it was theirs. But the other countries were also ruled by the Ottoman empire for 600 yrs. Why aren’t they insisting that Serbia, Bulgaria, Lebanon etc are also their lands? From the books that I have been reading, the following is the reason: those lands were far. Turkey let go of them when it lost the war. The last country that it was holding was Armenia. The difference between Armenia and the other territories is that Armenia was also where the Turkish nation lived. Letting go of Armenia would have been pretty much a death sentence for the Turks who had come from central Asia 600 yrs ago. They needed to hang on to it. Further, they did not want the “Armenian Problem” to hinder them ever again. They wanted to form a “legitimate” country comprised of a homogenous populatio formed mostly by Turks. The solution was the Armenian Genocide. You get rid of the native people, you give their properties and lands to Turks, you forcefully convert their women and children to Islam, you kill their men and their leaders, and voila you have your own country and a homogenous mostly Turkish muslim people. The Armenian Genocide is the biggest thorn in the side of Turkey. Its diplomats deny it, often making fools of themselves by making unbelievably denialistic comments, simply because as the Turkish government puts “it is a national security issue”. And there is the case literally. Recogning the Armenian Genocide will mean accepting the fact that Turkey is built over Western Armenia. This is the difference with the other countries, and this why I think it is being resisted so.
Sorry for the misspellings and errors in my last comment. I was sending it from my phone and missing some of the letters apparently. Bottom line, the 95 year injustice of the Genocide is so horrendous that it is impossible to swallow. To grow up listening to the inhumane experiences and survival stories of our grandparents, and then to be told that the Genocide was not proven, is psychological torture for us the descendants of the survivors. It tears our identity apart. We do not know how to give voice to our mostly deceased grandparents who experienced the Genocide firsthand and survived to tell us about it. The Turkish nation has been sworn to silence with the help of intimidating laws like not insulting Turkishness etc, because acknowledging the Genocide will mean acknowledging that more than half of the Republic of Turkey was built on confiscated Armenian property and lands, and by the mass murder of the Armenian native population. A Turkish politician made a comment not too long ago that it was a good thing that Turkey took over the Armenian lands when it did, otherwise they would not have a prosperous economy etc. today. The Genocide was a great success for Turkey, because it incorporated the Armenian properties, widows and orphans so well into its society, using temporary laws that authorized the confiscation, looting and murder of the Armenians. Turkey might be prosperous and successful; however it will never escape the stain that is tattooed on it. It will also not escape a people’s God given right to fight for their rights. The picture can change over night when Turkey comes clean, acknowledges the crimes committed like Germany has, and negotiates reparations. The Armenian people know that it is nearly impossible to put a price on a lost “country” and a lost “people”. The main thing the Armenian nation is looking for is a true and honest acknowledgment and apology, fairly negotiated reasonable reparations, and a civilized, not hostile relationship with Turkey moving forward.
TO ADD TO MY ABOVE POST THAT ALLMIGHTY SPAIN-LATER ON- WITH ITS ARMADA WAS RULING THE HIGH SEAS,CONQUERED NEAR ALL OF SOUTH AMERICA-EXCEPT BRAZIL(THIS, THE PORTUGEEZE did), THEN CENTURIES ON THE LOCAL AZTEG TRIBES BY AND BY GAINED THEIR INDEPENDENCE AND THE SPANISH HAD TO BW OUT…
THOUGH QUITE RECENTLY THEY HAVE DEVELOPED VERY INTIMATE FINANTIAL AND COMMERCAIL TIES AND WORK ALONG IN HARMONEY..
THIS IS THE PATH THAT EVENTUALLY GREAT TURKEY HAS TO FOLLOW AND BE NEIGHBOURLY WITH ALL .HOWEVER, …
PANARMENIAN.NET HAS IT (TODAY 15the MAY, year of the Lord 2010)that MR DAVOUTOGHLU HAS COME UP WITH A NEW IDEA THAT SOON “CARS will cross borders from kars to gyumri …on to Baku etc. etc.)
HE CONVENINTLY FORGETS THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT A RECIPROCAL, mutually agreeable “ENTENTE” withARMENIA AND ITS 7 MILLION DIASPORA IS IN PLACE!!!
in other words with the perrenail “SUGAR-COATED” such like offers he belives the ARMENIANS of today are those that were enslavened by their predecessor Governments and would come and live side by side,like not too long ago a turkish “intellectual” on this same Forum advocated ..to the effect thatthe Armenians are “our people”….Namely Ms Gunaysu…
Friends, this is as yet their mindset-mentality, that they can continue in the very old Ottoman mode.They have to study above mentioned Spanish,why not even also English past that also bowed out of India and several other areas under their EMPIRE…
kind rgds
Hye, in all the world’s civilized nations when crimes of murders, kidnapping, and more occur these nations, pursue the criminals, the criminals face justice;
ciminals serve the sentences for the crimes committed.
Yet, when criminals, using force (on masses of civilians, unarmed and innocents) commit such crimes against a whole nation (so many nations) the world leaderships do nothing to pursue the perpetrator of Genocide!
Actually, barely, get to admit that a ‘Genocide’ is even occurring (whilst the
slaughters, rapes, kidnappings, tortures are taking place). Why?
Masses of peoples subjected to the vilest inhumane cruelties, and these leaderships are incapable of coming together to face these bullies who perpetrate Genocides. Today in Darfur, the Sudanese deny having committed a Genocide of the Darfurians – ala Turkish mode of denials of the Turkish Genocide of the Armenian nation – still, nearly 100 years.
Had the Turks, in early 20th century, been made to face their crimes against the Armenian peoples, murders, tortures, rapes, kidnappings, and more (Turks’
mode of conquering peoples) just imagine – all despots that followed with all the Genocides of the 20th century and into Darfur 2010 – shall have known that the world did not tolerate Genocides, anywhere, by anyone whether a foe or ‘ally’.
Truth: these Genocides shall have never occurred – never ever allowed to occur!
Thus to end the cycles of Genocides the Turks today shall have to be brought to face their crimes, pay the reparations due and owing to the Armenians – in Armenia and those of the Survivors ‘ families who fled to safe havens in lands all across the world.
Only then, shall the cycle of Genocides finally come to an end. Only then, shall
the despots realize that their convoluted mentalities will not be borne by any of the advanced societies on our planet. Only then, will the cycle of Genocides end.
Only then…
Manooshag