Tweet
Source: http://www.eafjd.org/spip.php?article282&lang=en
Common Myths about Armenian-Turkish relations
There is at present a reconciliation process between Armenia and Turkey that will lead to a resolution of the problems between these two nations.
In reality, there is no meaningful reconciliation process. The Turkish blockade remains firmly in place, although, prior to key European meetings and reports, the Turkish government regularly circulate reports that it will soon be lifted.
In addition, Ankara regularly cites a variety of artificially constructed "reconciliation committees," designed not to foster true dialogue, but rather to cynically placate European expectations and divert attention from Turkey’s hostile posture toward Armenia.
Over the past three years, Turkey has consistently used this tactic during the time leading up to key European milestones, only to abandon them once their purpose has been served.
The hollow nature of Turkey’s approach to dialogue can best be understood against the backdrop of the standards accepted by the international community for true reconciliation committees. The United Nations has acknowledged that such bodies must have the following three aims:
Acknowledgement, reparation and reconciliation,
International norms are applied to every crime in all equity,
A consistent standard to dealing with all cases of genocide.
The Turkish government negotiates with Armenian authorities for opening the border.
Every year Turkey adds conditions to its lifting of its illegal blockade of Armenia. Armenia, in contrast, does not impose any preconditions to the establishment of political relations with Turkey. From 2004, Turkey demanded that Armenia:
Settle the Karabagh conflict on Azerbaijan’s terms,
Give up the demands of the Armenian Diaspora to recognize the Armenian Genocide,
Sign a specific document acknowledging Armenia’s border with Turkey,
Remove the reference to “the Western Armenia” in the Armenian constitution (a reference which does not exist)
Surrender the sovereignty on its southern province (Zanguezur) in order to create a bridge between Turkey, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan.
These are clearly unacceptable conditions designed not to promote peace but rather to subjugate Armenia to Turkey.
The reconciliation process consists in setting up a committee composed of experts or historians which allows to clarify what really happened in 1915.
Ottoman’s Turkey’s systematic and deliberate massacred and destruction of its Armenian population between 1915 and 1923 represents a clear case of genocide. This fact is universally understood - including by the Turkish government. Turkish officials of the time, including Ataturk, clearly recognized the scope and magnitude of this crime against humanity. Between 1.2 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed (2/3 of the Armenian population living in Turkey), and hundreds of thousands of other exiled from their homeland.
Under International Law, a genocide is different from other massacres in that it was deliberately planned and executed for the purpose of destroying a particular group. This is why the use of the right legal definition is vital. The use of evasive or euphemistic language only serves to obscure the true moral, historical, and legal implications of this crime.
People who returned after World War I were exterminated or driven away by the Atatürk regime, which had enlisted the support of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. Atatürk put into place a set of legal measures which confiscated Armenians goods and denied them the right to return to their lands.
The Armenian Genocide has been thoroughly researched and is among the best documented historical events of the past century.
The Turkish archives are opened to historians and researchers
The Turkish government regularly declares that historians and researchers have access to its archives. For decades, the Turkish government, as part of its denial campaign, has emptied these archives of incriminating evidence.
Fortunately, extensive documentation exists in the German, Austrian, Italian, French, British, American archives, irrefutably proving the clear genocidal intent of the Turkish government. The Armenian genocide has been recognized by many countries and political institutions, notably the European Parliament.
In this context, calling upon ‘historians committee” to question and eventually qualify again what is yet perfectly known is merely a denial attempt. In this regard, the International Association of Genocide Scholars has sent a open letter to Prime Minister Erdogan to explain that they have already stated on the Armenian massacres which were beyond any doubt a genocide.
The relations forged by the civil societies of both countries could play a role in this reconciliation.
We welcome authentic and sincere relations forged between the civil societies of both countries. Unfortunately, the Turkish government has suppressed any expression within civil society on this matter outside of its official policy of denial. In Armenia, after years of foreign rule, civil society is still in its formative stage.
In this context, the prospects for true discourse at the civil society level are weak. In its place, we are witnessing Turkish government-controlled NGOs seeking to manipulate inexperienced Armenian groups.
This level of discourse, of course, is no substitute for a political dialogue between Armenia and Turkey, a dialogue which does not exist by virtue of the fact that Turkey does not want to normalise diplomatic relations with Armenia.
Disputes between Armenia and Turkey are bilateral issues and do not have to interfere in Turkey’s bid to enter in the European Union.
This issue concerns both Turkey’s blockade and its genocide denial campaign.
Referring to the blockade:
This issue is directly linked to the Turkish candidacy in that the Copenhagen criteria explicitly stipulate the necessity for a candidate country to settle its border problems prior to membership.
The blockade of Armenia constitutes a clear violation of the Copenhagen criteria, as does Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus. If Turkey enters the Union under the current circumstances, the European Union would, itself, be forced into the unacceptable position of blockading Armenia. This would stand in sharp contradiction to the Union’s ethical principles, as well as its New Neighbourhood Policy of "suppressing demarcation borders in Europe." Turkey must settle its border problems before the membership, as was first demanded by the EU first in the framework of the Stability Pact, and then in the framework of the candidacy process.
Referring to the genocide:
This is clearly not a bilateral question. On the one hand, the genocide was perpetrated by Turkey in Turkey, not in Armenia (even if the Kemalists continued the genocidal massacres in Armenia in 1920 with the aim of totally exterminating the Armenian population). On the other hand, under International Law, a genocide is a crime “against everyone” (erga ommes). The Convention of 1948 specially stipulates that each state – and a fortiori a structure such as the European Union – is incumbent to not endorse the resulting situations from the genocide, but also do bring assistance to the victims or to their eligible parties in order to secure justice and, to a possible extent, see their former situation restored.
The Turkish policy of genocide denial its constant hostility to the Armenian people are sources of instability and regional tension. The frame of mind that underlies this xenophobic attitude constitutes a threat for all Europeans. Turkey’s refusal to recognize the Genocide is a clear indication that its past actions against Armenians, Greeks, Kurds will, in the future, be extended to others who are not Turkish, that is to say all the citizens of the Union. Turkish genocide denial directly threatens our future as Europeans.
Armenians from Turkey are in favour of the Turkey’s membership in the European Union.
Armenians who live in Turkey are hostages in their own country, constantly exploited by the Turkish government. The most obvious example of this is the government’s effort to pressure the Armenian Patriarch.
Despite these efforts to manipulate the Armenian minority population in support of its EU membership, it remains clear that if Turkey joins without undertaking meaningful reforms, the minority populations will not no benefit, but will actually suffer from Turkey’s accession.
Turkey’s recognition of the genocide should not be a prerequisite to the opening of the negotiations.
Turkey had already had more time than necessary. More than ninety years have passed since the genocide and seventeen years since the genocide recognition demand by the European Parliament (1987). At this stage, it would be naïve to believe that without a strong pressure, Turkey will by herself recognize this crime. That is why this question must be placed as a prerequisite to any discussion with Ankara, as it is the case for the torture and Cyprus issues
Common Myths about Armenian-Turkish relations
There is at present a reconciliation process between Armenia and Turkey that will lead to a resolution of the problems between these two nations.
In reality, there is no meaningful reconciliation process. The Turkish blockade remains firmly in place, although, prior to key European meetings and reports, the Turkish government regularly circulate reports that it will soon be lifted.
In addition, Ankara regularly cites a variety of artificially constructed "reconciliation committees," designed not to foster true dialogue, but rather to cynically placate European expectations and divert attention from Turkey’s hostile posture toward Armenia.
Over the past three years, Turkey has consistently used this tactic during the time leading up to key European milestones, only to abandon them once their purpose has been served.
The hollow nature of Turkey’s approach to dialogue can best be understood against the backdrop of the standards accepted by the international community for true reconciliation committees. The United Nations has acknowledged that such bodies must have the following three aims:
Acknowledgement, reparation and reconciliation,
International norms are applied to every crime in all equity,
A consistent standard to dealing with all cases of genocide.
The Turkish government negotiates with Armenian authorities for opening the border.
Every year Turkey adds conditions to its lifting of its illegal blockade of Armenia. Armenia, in contrast, does not impose any preconditions to the establishment of political relations with Turkey. From 2004, Turkey demanded that Armenia:
Settle the Karabagh conflict on Azerbaijan’s terms,
Give up the demands of the Armenian Diaspora to recognize the Armenian Genocide,
Sign a specific document acknowledging Armenia’s border with Turkey,
Remove the reference to “the Western Armenia” in the Armenian constitution (a reference which does not exist)
Surrender the sovereignty on its southern province (Zanguezur) in order to create a bridge between Turkey, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan.
These are clearly unacceptable conditions designed not to promote peace but rather to subjugate Armenia to Turkey.
The reconciliation process consists in setting up a committee composed of experts or historians which allows to clarify what really happened in 1915.
Ottoman’s Turkey’s systematic and deliberate massacred and destruction of its Armenian population between 1915 and 1923 represents a clear case of genocide. This fact is universally understood - including by the Turkish government. Turkish officials of the time, including Ataturk, clearly recognized the scope and magnitude of this crime against humanity. Between 1.2 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed (2/3 of the Armenian population living in Turkey), and hundreds of thousands of other exiled from their homeland.
Under International Law, a genocide is different from other massacres in that it was deliberately planned and executed for the purpose of destroying a particular group. This is why the use of the right legal definition is vital. The use of evasive or euphemistic language only serves to obscure the true moral, historical, and legal implications of this crime.
People who returned after World War I were exterminated or driven away by the Atatürk regime, which had enlisted the support of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. Atatürk put into place a set of legal measures which confiscated Armenians goods and denied them the right to return to their lands.
The Armenian Genocide has been thoroughly researched and is among the best documented historical events of the past century.
The Turkish archives are opened to historians and researchers
The Turkish government regularly declares that historians and researchers have access to its archives. For decades, the Turkish government, as part of its denial campaign, has emptied these archives of incriminating evidence.
Fortunately, extensive documentation exists in the German, Austrian, Italian, French, British, American archives, irrefutably proving the clear genocidal intent of the Turkish government. The Armenian genocide has been recognized by many countries and political institutions, notably the European Parliament.
In this context, calling upon ‘historians committee” to question and eventually qualify again what is yet perfectly known is merely a denial attempt. In this regard, the International Association of Genocide Scholars has sent a open letter to Prime Minister Erdogan to explain that they have already stated on the Armenian massacres which were beyond any doubt a genocide.
The relations forged by the civil societies of both countries could play a role in this reconciliation.
We welcome authentic and sincere relations forged between the civil societies of both countries. Unfortunately, the Turkish government has suppressed any expression within civil society on this matter outside of its official policy of denial. In Armenia, after years of foreign rule, civil society is still in its formative stage.
In this context, the prospects for true discourse at the civil society level are weak. In its place, we are witnessing Turkish government-controlled NGOs seeking to manipulate inexperienced Armenian groups.
This level of discourse, of course, is no substitute for a political dialogue between Armenia and Turkey, a dialogue which does not exist by virtue of the fact that Turkey does not want to normalise diplomatic relations with Armenia.
Disputes between Armenia and Turkey are bilateral issues and do not have to interfere in Turkey’s bid to enter in the European Union.
This issue concerns both Turkey’s blockade and its genocide denial campaign.
Referring to the blockade:
This issue is directly linked to the Turkish candidacy in that the Copenhagen criteria explicitly stipulate the necessity for a candidate country to settle its border problems prior to membership.
The blockade of Armenia constitutes a clear violation of the Copenhagen criteria, as does Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus. If Turkey enters the Union under the current circumstances, the European Union would, itself, be forced into the unacceptable position of blockading Armenia. This would stand in sharp contradiction to the Union’s ethical principles, as well as its New Neighbourhood Policy of "suppressing demarcation borders in Europe." Turkey must settle its border problems before the membership, as was first demanded by the EU first in the framework of the Stability Pact, and then in the framework of the candidacy process.
Referring to the genocide:
This is clearly not a bilateral question. On the one hand, the genocide was perpetrated by Turkey in Turkey, not in Armenia (even if the Kemalists continued the genocidal massacres in Armenia in 1920 with the aim of totally exterminating the Armenian population). On the other hand, under International Law, a genocide is a crime “against everyone” (erga ommes). The Convention of 1948 specially stipulates that each state – and a fortiori a structure such as the European Union – is incumbent to not endorse the resulting situations from the genocide, but also do bring assistance to the victims or to their eligible parties in order to secure justice and, to a possible extent, see their former situation restored.
The Turkish policy of genocide denial its constant hostility to the Armenian people are sources of instability and regional tension. The frame of mind that underlies this xenophobic attitude constitutes a threat for all Europeans. Turkey’s refusal to recognize the Genocide is a clear indication that its past actions against Armenians, Greeks, Kurds will, in the future, be extended to others who are not Turkish, that is to say all the citizens of the Union. Turkish genocide denial directly threatens our future as Europeans.
Armenians from Turkey are in favour of the Turkey’s membership in the European Union.
Armenians who live in Turkey are hostages in their own country, constantly exploited by the Turkish government. The most obvious example of this is the government’s effort to pressure the Armenian Patriarch.
Despite these efforts to manipulate the Armenian minority population in support of its EU membership, it remains clear that if Turkey joins without undertaking meaningful reforms, the minority populations will not no benefit, but will actually suffer from Turkey’s accession.
Turkey’s recognition of the genocide should not be a prerequisite to the opening of the negotiations.
Turkey had already had more time than necessary. More than ninety years have passed since the genocide and seventeen years since the genocide recognition demand by the European Parliament (1987). At this stage, it would be naïve to believe that without a strong pressure, Turkey will by herself recognize this crime. That is why this question must be placed as a prerequisite to any discussion with Ankara, as it is the case for the torture and Cyprus issues
Comment