`three Turkish Voices On The Ottoman Armenians´

[Tongue]

I'm curious was there any protests outside?
or inside .

No there wasn't.
Though, they said the Turkish students association at UCLA wanted to have a representative from their side present to speak at the conference, but they didn't agree. They said, this is a free country, you can hold your own conference whenever/wherever you want, and whoever's interested, will attend it.

[Gavur]

Turkish Scholars Expect TurkeyTo Acknowledge Genocide by 2015

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

While a few Turkish scholars on rare occasions have individually
participated in Armenian conferences, never before has an all-Turkish panel
addressed an Armenian audience on issues related to the Armenian Genocide.
Such a unique conference took place at UCLA last Sunday.
The first indication that there were special sensitivities at this academic
gathering was a sign at the UCLA campus directing the guests to the
building where the conference was being held. It said: "Armenian Studies
Conference."
A curious passerby, noticing that the second word, "Studies," was
handwritten on a piece of paper and taped over the sign, tore off the paper
revealing that the sign originally read: "Armenian Genocide Conference."
Prof. Richard Hovannisian, the organizer of this conference, said that he
had anticipated 300 people to be in attendance. More than 800 showed up,
obliging some of the speakers to repeat their remarks to the overflowing
crowd at an adjacent hall. Also in attendance was a representative of the
Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles, to make sure that Ankara is properly
briefed on these proceedings.
The first speaker was Dr. Taner Akcam of the Dept. of History at the Univ.
of Minnesota. He said that even though successive Turkish governments had
"purged" the Ottoman archives of evidence linking Turkish leaders to the
planning and execution of the Armenian Genocide, there are still many
Ottoman records that provide ample circumstantial proof of this crime.
Dr. Akcam quoted from several documents located in the Prime Ministry's
archives that clearly showed the government's detailed plans to deport
Armenians not just from Anatolia, but from throughout what is today Turkey.
Contrary to Turkish claims that Armenians were merely deported from the
border area with Russia, Prof. Akcam presented evidence that 30,000
Armenians were deported form Istanbul alone and thousands more from other
towns hundreds of miles away from the war zone.
Dr. Akcam revealed that these deportations were pre-planned with the intent
of immediately repopulating the Armenian regions with Muslim immigrants in
order to create a "pure Turkish/Islamic state." He pointed out that when
the Armenian population of a particular region was reduced to below 10%,
the local officials were ordered to stop any further deportations and
killings from that area.
Regarding the confiscation of the properties of deported Armenians, Dr.
Akcam said that despite the government's public announcements at the time
that they were entitled to compensation, not a single Armenian received
such payments. Some of the Armenian properties were given to Muslim
immigrants.
Other Armenian assets were sold in order to finance the Turkish war effort,
pay the expenses of the Armenian deportations, or build schools and
prisons.
Dr. Akcam ended his talk by predicting that the Turkish government would
recognize the Armenian Genocide by the year 2015, the same year as Turkey's
hoped-for membership in the European Union.
The second speaker was Dr. Elif Shafak of the Dept. of Near Eastern Studies
at the Univ. of Arizona. She emphasized the value of "micro-studies" in
putting a face and a name on the victims of atrocities. She said that for
today's Turkish youth, history starts with the year 1923 - the
establishment of the Republic of Turkey, whereas Armenian youth have a much
longer historical memory. She referred extensively to the life and writings
of Zabel Yessayan -- an Istanbul novelist at the turn of the last century
-- who documented the personal suffering of Armenians during both the 1909
Adana massacres and the subsequent Genocide.
Dr. Shafak said she wanted to see a democratic Turkey. "We need to face our
past," she told the audience. "Turkey had transitioned from a multi-ethnic
empire to a homogeneous state," Prof. Shafak said. Turkey has undergone not
only "an ethnic cleansing, but also a linguistic cleansing."
The final speaker was Dr. Fatma Muge Gocek of the Dept. of Sociology and
Program of Women's Studies at the Univ. of Michigan. She related the twists
and turns of the conference on Ottoman Armenians that was finally held in
Istanbul last September after several postponements.
According to Prof. Gocek, some of the Turks attending the Istanbul
conference revealed that they were the grandchildren of Armenians abducted
or sheltered by Turks during the Genocide. She stunned the audience by
estimating that there may be up to 2 million Turks who are partly of
Armenian ancestry!
She also expressed the hope that by the year 2015 Turkey would recognize
the Armenian Genocide. "Armenians have been wronged, but have not been able
to mourn their losses, because of the Turkish denials," she said. Dr. Gocek
concluded by advocating that Armenians be given Turkish citizenship and the
right of return. She said that Turkey was "the common homeland of both
Armenians and Turks."
During the question and answer period, Dr. Akcam explained that in terms of
next steps, Turkey could either just apologize or go as far as paying
compensation and making restitution for the Genocide. He said that there
was a wide range of possibilities between these two options. He
acknowledged that this was more of a political rather than an academic
issue. He concluded by saying: had Turkey acknowledged the Armenian
Genocide in the 1920's, other human rights violations may not have taken
place later on in
that country!
This was a fascinating conference for the local Armenian community. Many of
them had never before heard Turks talking about issues related to the
Armenian Genocide. All three speakers were repeatedly interrupted with
enthusiastic applause.
Prof. Hovannisian thanked the Turkish scholars for their participation and
promised to the audience that a future conference would deal with the
issues of reparations and territorial demands from Turkey.

[Gavur]

Official Accusation Against Taner Akçam

By Alper Nakri, Dogan News Agency, Los Angeles
Milliyet, November 9, 2005, page 20

Three Turkish scholars affiliated with different American
universities, academic researcher Taner Akçam, together with Fatma
Müge Göcek and author Elif Safak, took part in a panel called "Three
Turkish Voices on the Ottoman Armenians," which was organized at UCLA
by the Armenian lobby. Akçam asserted that Turkey will accept the
genocide allegations along with EU membership; he claimed that this
will take place in 2015. "According to the 1948 definition, it is
impossible to define the Union and Progress Party's policy towards the
Armenians as anything but genocide," Akçam told the Dogan News
Agency. Engin Ansay, Turkey's Consul General in Los Angeles, said they
[the government?] had discovered that Akçam earns $5000 to $7000 for
participating in conferences. Ansay stated: "This was a conference
that didn't include Turkey's official position or take into account
unbiased, objective, scholarly views and archival discoveries in
Turkey. The participants were pseudo-scholars. Akçam and Göçek are
rendering this service for fame and fortune, in a highly conscious
manner, and perhaps even in spite of their own beliefs."

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg128608.html

[Groong note: We have verified with UCLA as well as conference Speakers
that no such sums were received by the speakers for this
conference. --AB ]

[Gavur]

Three Turks... and 2015

http://www.cilicia.com/armo_spiurk-log.html

(Turkish professor Taner Akcam will be releasing his new book, "A Shameful ACT: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility," in April of 2006. )

[Gavur]

http://www.armeniangenocide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1108

[Gavur]

Turkish Scholars Are Accused ofBeing Paid off by Armenians

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

Turkish establishment's displeasure with the three independent Turkish
scholars who spoke at UCLA on November 6, expressing their disagreement
with the Turkish government's denialist views on the Armenian Genocide,
keeps escalating.
Before the conference, professors Taner Akcam, Fatma Muge Gocek and Elif
Shafak received insulting and threatening e-mails from individual Turks.
Then the Turkish Students' Association at UCLA offered to fly a denialist
"scholar" all the way from Turkey to counter the three Turkish speakers, a
suggestion that was declined.
Now the Turks are accusing these scholars of being paid by Armenians for
their anti-establishment views. Milliyet reported in its Nov. 9 issue that
the Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles Engin Ansay had told Alper Nakri,
the reporter for the Dogan News Agency in Los Angeles, that Akcam earns
$5,000 to $7,000 for taking part in such conferences. Ansay was quoted as
saying: "The participants [of the UCLA conference] are pseudo-scholars.
Akcam and Gocek are rendering this service for fame and fortune, in a
highly conscious manner, and perhaps even in spite of their own beliefs."
Needless to say, this accusation deeply offended the three scholars. Even
though this was not the first time that Turkish journalists and officials
had slandered them for challenging the Turkish government's denials of the
Armenian Genocide, it was the first time that such an accusation was made
in the United States, thus making the slanderous article actionable under
US libel laws.
Before considering any legal action, however, Prof. Gocek said in an e-mail
that she contacted the Turkish Consul General to confirm Milliyet's report.
Mr. Ansay denied making those statements. Then someone from Milliyet
contacted Dr. Akcam, asking him to write a rebuttal.
While we cannot be certain whether or not the Consul General was misquoted,
most Turkish newspapers are notorious for publishing unsubstantiated and
unverified news items. Even though from time to time someone has the
courage and patience to sue them, the publishers of these papers consider
the payment of court-mandated fines as the cost of doing business.
Because of their lack of journalistic standards, I have always refused all
interview requests by the Turkish media. No amount of subsequent
corrections or retractions could undo the damage to one's reputation after
a distorted version of one's words is published.
TRT (Turkish State Radio and Television) and CNN-Turk are reportedly coming
to the United States in a few weeks to interview Armenian Americans on
Turkish-Armenian relations. Regrettably, some Armenians are going to accept
to be interviewed by these Turkish TV stations either out of a desire to
see themselves on TV or naďvely thinking that they would be educating the
Turks on Armenian issues. Afterwards, when they see that their statements
are distorted, they then blame the Turkish media and try to convince their
fellow Armenians that they didn't really make those terrible statements!
Complaining after an interview is distorted does not help matters. We need
to learn from the sad experiences of thousands of others who have been
victimized by the Turkish media over the years. Refusing to speak to the
Turkish media is the best way to stay out of trouble!

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg128958.html

[Gavur]

"Three Turkish Voices" at UCLA

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 375033, Armenia
Tel: (+374 - 10) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 - 10) 52.48.46
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website: www.acnis.am


November 18, 2005


"Three Turkish Voices" at UCLA

by Sevan Yousefian


Los Angeles--On Sunday afternoon, November 6, an extraordinary forum titled
"Three Turkish Voices on the Ottoman Armenians" took place at UCLA.
Organized by Professor Richard Hovannisian and sponsored by the UCLA
Armenian Educational Foundation Chair in Modern Armenian History with the
support of the Center for Near Eastern Studies, the program included Dr.
Taner Akçam, University of Minnesota; Dr. Elif Shafak University of Arizona;
and Dr. Fatma Muge Goçek, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Featuring an
exclusively Turkish panel, the forum generated great interest among
students, academics, and the public. More than 800 people arrived at an
auditorium that has a normal capacity of 375 but was crammed with more than
eager 500 attendees who spilled over into the aisles, vestibules, and all
available floor space. Fortunately, an adjacent auditorium was soon opened
to accommodate most of the remaining overflow crowd, which was able to
listen through a live audio link and to meet and hear the participants
directly after each had spoken in the first auditorium.

Dr. Hovannisian noted that this was not only a record-breaking event but
also a historic occasion, as three scholars had come to challenge the
Turkish states narrative of denial by openly addressing the fate of the
Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. He stated: "I am most grateful to
Professors Akçam, Shafak, and Goçek, who understand that the topic at hand
is not only one that is an Armenian issue but one that is equally a Turkish
and a humanitarian issue."

Dr. Taner Akçam discussed the value of the Ottoman archives for studying the
Armenian Genocide. He insisted that the belief that nearly all Ottoman
documents concerning the Genocide were destroyed by successive Turkish
governments is a misconception. Although no proverbial smoking gun has been
discovered to prove conclusively that the Young Turk government planned and
executed the physical destruction of the Armenian people, there is extensive
documentation relating to the genocidal intent of the regime. Such documents
include official papers and correspondences from the central authorities in
Istanbul guiding and instructing regional party and administrative officials
in the implementation of the mass deportation of the Armenians, the
appropriation and distribution of Armenian property and assets, the special
targeting and intentional maltreatment of the Armenian deportees, and the
swift settlement of Muslim newcomers in the Armenian towns as villages,
often within a few days after the Armenians were marched away. Such evidence
demonstrates that the Genocide was carefully planned and carried out by the
central government, which purposefully denied the deportees the protection
and care necessary for their survival.

Dr. Elif Shafak expressed the need to look into the personal histories or
micro-histories of people whose lives were changed and destroyed by the
calamity. With the passing of time and the gradual disappearance of victims
of and witnesses to the massacres, Turks and Armenians tend respectively to
view each other as one monolithic accuser or as a homogenous group of
perpetrators. Focusing on the lives of individuals immediately affected by
the brutality, however, puts a personal face on the victims. Shafak
presented the example of Zabel Yessayan, an Armenian author from
Constantinople, whose early works expressed her belief that Turks and
Armenians were able to live together as citizens of their common
homeland--the Ottoman Empire. As relations between the two groups
deteriorated into massive elimination, however, Yessayan was stripped of her
optimism. Her post-genocide writing reflects the complete shattering of her
vision of a symbiotic relationship and a free multinational existence.

Dr. Shafak explained: "In focusing on Zabel Yessayan, I not only wanted to
put a personal face to the collective pain inflicted on the Armenian people
in 1915 but also to show that the Young Turks saw the Armenian intellectuals
as a danger, and this was the reason that they suppressed and silenced them
first. Just as important, my question is why and how Turkish and Armenian
intellectuals have failed to collaborate in the past and how can they
overcome this sad legacy to work together toward reconciliation?"

Dr. Fatma Muge Goçek discussed the conference on Ottoman Armenians that took
place in Istanbul in September. The programs of that conference which she
distributed showed the wide range of topics addressed by the participants,
all of whom were, as the organizers intended, were Turkish citizens. She
illustrated the difficulties faced by organizers and participants. Certain
government circles attempted to prevent the convening of the conference,
which had to be postponed from its originally-scheduled date in May to
September, after an international storm of protest gave great visibility to
the event. Even in September, legal challenges were made to prevent the
opening of the conference, but fortunately the organizers used loopholes to
circumvent the courts. The conference received thorough, mostly negative,
coverage in the Turkish media. The tacit support of certain individuals in
the Turkish government and the positive reactions by some members of the
Turkish press, however, show that at least some influential persons seem to
be taking a positive stance toward the liberalization of Turkish society and
the freedom of expression. The organizers and almost all participants in the
September conference came away with deep emotional satisfaction and hope.

After each speaker, the audience submitted written questions and at the end
of the forum the speakers again addressed specific points that had been
raised. All Three Turkish Voices received sustained applause from a riveted,
highly appreciative audience. Encouraged by the unprecedented turnout and
active discussion session, Dr. Richard Hovannisian suggested that further
conferences and lectures may be in order to explore further and develop the
themes and issues considered during the forum.

[Gavur]

I, as an ethnically Turkish citizen, am not guilty, but am responsible

Kaynak: INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR GENOCIDE AND HUMAN RIG
Yer: toronto
Tarih: 13.12.2005

http://www.hyetert.com/haber3.asp?AltYazi=Haberler+%5C%3E+G%FCncel&Id=18919&DilId=1

“I, as an ethnically Turkish citizen, am not guilty, but am responsible for what happened to the Armenians in 1915.”

Toronto, Canada – Dr. Fatma Müge Göçek, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, and the author of many books and articles, gave an eye-opening and provocative public lecture on “Turkey, the European Union and the Armenian Question,” and in that context, discussed the significance of the recent Istanbul conference on “Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy.”

The event took place on Dec. 2, 2005 and was organized by the International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (A Division of the Zoryan Institute). Varouj Aivazian, Prof. of Economics at the University of Toronto and Chair of the Institute’s Corporate Board introduced the event by stating why the Institute created this evening’s forum. He highlighted that Prof. Göçek simultaneously has both incurred the ire of her compatriots and earned their respect and admiration for her stand on the Armenian Genocide, her role in advising the organizers of the Istanbul conference, and her participation in it.

Prof. Göçek prefaced her remarks with a statement that she was not receiving any payment for her appearance, nor does she accept payment for any of her invited lectures on this subject. She made that point emphatically, as she has been accused recently of speaking out in a manner opposing the Turkish state thesis on the Armenian Genocide only for financial consideration.

Prof. Göçek stated that while she does not use the word “genocide” to refer to what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, she affirmed that “It certainly is so by the definition accepted by the United Nations.” She then very clearly explained that she has decided not to employ the term in her work, “because the term ‘genocide’ has become politicized by the Turkish state, as well as by certain segments of the Armenian Diaspora in such a manner that I think it hinders the discussion that needs to take place to get Turkish state and society…to understand what happened in 1915.”

Proceeding with a detailed historical outline of the Armenian Genocide and its denial, she discussed the importance of the recognition of the Genocide and reconciliation between Turks and Armenians. The relation between the Armenian Question and the Turkish state has gone through stages, according to Prof. Göçek. The first stage was exploration, where the Armenian and official Turkish state versions were first delineated. Most of the world, except for Turkey, has accepted what happened to the Armenians as at least a massacre, if not a genocide. The Turkish state was able to sustain its position, however, due to cold war Realpolitik. People became polarized in two camps. She stated, “They judged you on whether or not you used the word ‘genocide’ and did not listen to anything else you had to say. This has impeded discussion on important questions, such as why the Genocide happened, so that we can learn to prevent it from happening again.”

The second stage she calls “the challenge stage.” As a result of improved economic, communications and educational development in Turkey, a climate was created for a challenge to state control over free speech and thought. The coming to power of the AK Party, in spite of strong nationalist opposition from within the state military and bureaucracy, comprised the political manifestation of this stage. The AK Party government emerged willing to ally itself on certain issues with the educated liberal forces of society that challenged the status quo. This was accompanied by increased efforts to have Turkey join the European Union, an endeavor that was ironically led by the religiously conservative but politically liberal AK Party government. They felt that the only way for their religiously based party to survive in secular Turkey was through EU membership, which would foster and strengthen democracy in Turkey. Hand in hand with this democratization goes Turkey’s ability to confront its past, which requires the diminution of the nationalist forces in Turkey.

The academic indicator of the “challenge stage” is the Istanbul Conference, where liberal intellectuals, who were willing to challenge the official discourse on the fate of the Armenians, discussed their positions. It was the nationalist forces that tried through various means to undermine and cancel the conference.

In her analysis of the significance of the Istanbul conference, Prof. Göçek explained that Turkish scholars were able for the first time to come together as a community in Turkey to challenge the official state discourse. She made clear that their opposition to the official state discourse does not in any way imply opposition to the existence of the Turkish state. The Turkish Republic should be proud, she insisted, that it has produced a group of scholars who are willing to criticize the state and society with the purpose of making it a better place for all of its citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. She then added that what she and other intellectuals strove for was to make sure that there is public space in Turkey for everyone to make their views heard, regardless of whether or not they are critical of the state.

While the conference provided an opportunity to discuss various scholarly issues, she continued, contrary to the expectation and fears of some, it did not attempt to issue a resolution that genocide had taken place. That is not what academics do, she added. The purpose of the conference was to discuss and debate issues. The most significant presentations were those that emphasized the human dimension, which discussed the loss to the Turks caused by the departure of the Armenians. Furthermore, the conference participants were able to move away from the Turkish nationalist identity, which views the Armenian Diaspora as a vast monolith. Finally, the conference helped them realize the extent of the fear inside Turkey, the lack of confidence and the lack of knowledge on the Armenian issue as a whole.

She described what scholars can do to help the situation. The most crucial thing, she urged, is that we develop a common language and a common body of knowledge….We have to make the Turkish public aware that recognition has to take place, not only because it is moral to do so, but it is also necessary for the democratization of Turkish society. The significance of this recognition is that the lack of it has sanctioned violence by the Turkish state against its own society. Turks have to understand what the cost of denial has been to them, both as a people and as a society. In this process, we have to take action against legal crackdowns both in Turkey—like those against Hrant Dink, Ragip Zarakolu and Orhan Pamuk—and in North America, where there is now a legal challenge against the Massachusetts educational authority.

As Prof. Göçek presented her conclusions, she stated that it is important to separate guilt and responsibility. “I, as an ethnically Turkish citizen, am not guilty, but am responsible for what happened to the Armenians in 1915. This is a crucial separation that has to be done for transformation.” In addition, she expressed that her ultimate aim is to make Turkey once more the common homeland of both Armenians and Turks, once again habitable by both, by granting Turkish citizenship and, therefore, right of return to all Armenians of Anatolian descent.

As Prof. Göçek’s speech captivated the audience with the force of her stand on the issues, Mr. Yonet C. Tezel, Counsellor of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, representing the Turkish Ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Aydemir Erman (who could not attend), asked to respond to her. In keeping with the principle of providing space for alternative points of view, as Prof. Göçek advocates, he was granted several minutes to make a speech of his own, even though the forum was purely academic. He began by observing that looking at the audience, it is difficult to tell who is Turk and who is Armenian and suggested that is the point of departure from which we should all take some inspiration. He then went on to state that the study of this period of history is on the rise in Turkey, and the people of Turkey are more aware of the seriousness of the accusation of genocide than ever before, and in that sense the Istanbul conference was important. “However, the people of Turkey do not feel they are the grandchildren of perpetrators of genocide,” he stated. He made this statement despite the fact that Prof. Göçek had already differentiated guilt and responsibility and also articulated that many of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide had joined Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to eventually become members of the first government of the Republic of Turkey. “I did an analysis of the Deputies of the first National Assembly,” she explained. “I have found enough documentation that implicates about 25-30% of the Deputies of having participated in the massacres against the Armenians….Not only was there no accountability and no punishment for those who committed crimes against the Armenians, but many of the perpetrators unfortunately then became leaders of the Turkish Republic. Significant among these, for example, were people like Ismet Inunu and Celal Bayar…who came to occupy significant posts, such as either the President, Prime Minister, or Ministers of the new Republic…. So the perpetrators of the past became…the heroes of the present and the future, and this made it extremely difficult, I think, for Mustapha Kemal, who himself, actually, was chosen to lead the independence struggle, because he did not at all participate in any of these crimes.”

The Mr. Tezel also remarked, “I would caution against a dichotomy being drawn between the Turkish state and the civil society. Yes, there is a patrimonialism that is inherent from the Ottomans, but centre-peripheral relations are not enough to describe modern Turkey—certainly not in the last few decades. With all due respect for the EU, the EU does facilitate some of the liberalization, the reforms in Turkey. That’s all fine; that’s all welcome.”

“It is surprising to hear Mr. Tezel’s claim that there is no difference of view between the Turkish state and a significant element of civil society after the hour-long presentation on the subject by Prof. Muge,” said K.M. Greg Sarkissian, President of the Institute. “Mr. Tezel is forgetting the forceful public statements by social activists like Hrant Dink and Ragip Zarakolu, both facing trial for daring to speak differently from the state-sanctioned view. He is forgetting the criticism of scholars, like Fatma Müge Göçek, Halil Bektay, Murat Belge, and Taner Akcam, to name only a few. He is also forgetting writers, like Elif Shafak and Orhan Pamuk, the most prominent of them, openly decrying the Turkish state’s suppression of freedom of speech.“ Sarkissian then cited a statement by Pamuk from Time Magazine: “Although Turkey has made various ‘reforms’ concerning freedom of _expression, sometimes it seems that these have been made for show and not out of conviction. I am a writer. It is humiliating to live in a country where this subject [the Armenian massacre of 1915-17] is a taboo and cannot be discussed.”

Then, His Excellency, Mr. Ara Papian, the Armenian Ambassador, asked for permission to speak. He stated that the Armenian Government has been waiting to see some indications of good will from the Turkish side, which has kept the border between the two countries closed and used its relations with a third country, Azerbaijan, to legitimate its decision not to have relations with Armenia. He emphasized that the Armenian state has never claimed territory or reparations from Turkey. Armenia’s main goal, he insisted, is to establish better relations with Turkey. If Armenia wanted to make claims against Turkey, it would not have to do so through the Genocide, he explained, as there are bilateral and multilateral agreements that give Armenia the possibility to do so.

One of the highlights of the evening was that the audience included Armenians and Turks, as well as Alevis and Kurds, along with official representatives from both countries, who had been officially invited by the Institute. In this respect, Ms. Dicle Bilgin, one of the leaders of the Alevi community in Toronto, said, “One of the most important aspects of the evening was that Armenians, Turks, Kurds and Alevis were able to come together and discuss freely and openly a subject that is still taboo in Turkey.” In describing her feelings about this event, she said, “I was very, very emotional to see that representatives from both embassies come together in this forum and talk. After all, without talking together, people can not come to any agreement.”

One of the attendees, Ms. Junko Kanekiyo, a graduate student from Japan studying at the University of Toronto, expressed how fascinating it was for her to learn how the Turkish state denies the Armenian Genocide, just as the Japanese state denies its atrocities committed before and during World War II.

Mr. Murat Nisan, an Armenian from Turkey, stated that he was very pleased with the event, “even though the academic aspect of the lecture was impinged upon by the tensions introduced by the two political representatives, and the inherent emotional element that goes with that. Nevertheless,” he explained, “because of the forum created by the Institute, for me this represented a dialogue between the two parties, both from the podium and through the questions and answers with the audience.”

All present were touched by Prof. Göçek’s message that we should not get caught up in the denial aspects of the Armenian Genocide, but rather learn what happened, so that we can understand how to prevent it from happening again. Furthermore, they were moved by her emphasis that while history and documents can be interpreted in various ways, the human suffering that took place in 1915 should not be overlooked or negotiated. She left them with the message that it is the scholar’s responsibility to emphasize the human dimension, and that we as humans should be morally responsible and share the suffering of others regardless of political considerations.

“Prof. Göçek’s speech and the rebuttal of the Turkish state representative in this public forum are a manifestation of what is going on in Turkey today,” said Greg Sarkissian. “There is a struggle between the dark forces of the “Inner State” of Turkey and the forces of democracy. As part of that struggle, the democratic forces of Turkish society must regain control of its history. It is our hope that Turkey does join the EU, because I sincerely believe that it is for the benefit of both the Turkish and Armenian nations.”

George Shirinian, Director of the Institute, expressed gratification for the success of the evening. He observed that it was rare for Turks and Armenians to come together with their respective countries’ representatives and have a dialogue in such an open and constructive forum. He credited Prof. Göçek for being able, through her detailed and informative presentation, to lead the combined audience through this kind of dialogue, which has been taboo in Turkey up to now and a major obstacle to freedom of speech and thought. “I do hope,” he stated, “that Turks and Armenians together can continue the momentum for dialogue that was created here this evening.”

The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (A Division of the Zoryan Institute) is committed to developing a new generation of scholars to engage in research and publication in the field of genocide and human rights studies. The institute seeks to help develop an academic-level educational support system for those who wish to work toward the prevention of genocide. The program strives to show, through the comparative study and sharing of the genocidal traumas of many peoples, that genocide is a universal human experience and that, as such, it must be the concern of all individuals and institutions.

[Gavur]

An Interview with Dr. Fatma Muge Gocek

"It would certainly be wiser for the Turkish government to come to
terms with its history."


Turkish Scholars and the Armenian Question
An Interview with
Dr. Fatma Muge Gocek

By Aris Babikian

In the last few months many righteous Turks have began to challenge the
Turkish Government policy of denial on the Armenian Genocide. The Istanbul
Conference, in Bilgi University, was a turning point in breaking the taboo
of discussion on the Armenian Genocide in Turkey. By challenging their
government, these Turkish historians and intellectuals have provided an
opportunity for the Turkish people to hear a more balanced version of their
history, very different from what successive Turkish Governments have
maintained.

Those courageous and honourable Turkish intellectuals have been vilified,
threatened, blackmailed, intimidated and labelled traitors by some
nationalists, paramilitary and governments circles. Among the pioneering
intellectuals are Elif Shafak, Taner Akcam, Halil Berktay, Orhan Pamuk,
Ragip Zarakolu and others.

Dr. Fatma Muge Gocek is another one of these honest and righteous Turks who
have stood up to the might of the Turkish Government and establishment. We
had the opportunity to meet her and provide our readers some of her
thoughts, feelings, and insights on the Armenian Genocide, the
Armenian-Turkish dialogue and how to bring reconciliation to our nations.

Aris Babikian - Can you tell us about your background?

Fatma Muge Gocek - I was born and raised in Istanbul, Turkey. After
receiving my B.A. and M.A. at Bogazici University and spending some time at
the Sorbonne learning French, I came to the United States for my Ph.D. I
received another M.A. and a Ph.D. in sociology from Princeton University and
then started to teach at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; I received
tenure some time ago. I specialize on social change in the Middle East in
general and historical sociology of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish
Republic in particular.

AB - What motivated you to get involved in the Armenian Genocide issue? To
be such an outspoken person and to take a stand against the Turkish
Government's policies?

FMG - There are two trajectories that led me to focus on the Armenian
question, one intellectual and the other personal. Intellectually, my
initial academic work was on the history of Westernization in the Ottoman
Empire. My dissertation analyzed the inheritance registers in the Ottoman
archives with the intent to trace the eighteenth and nineteenth century
diffusion into the empire of Western goods, ideas and institutions. That
analysis alerted me to the significance of the Ottoman minorities (Greeks,
Jews and Armenians) in the empire in negotiating relations with the West; it
also emerged that these minorities formed the first Ottoman bourgeoisie.

Yet because they were structurally separated from the Muslims in such a way
that it was difficult for them to cooperate in forming this news social
class: my subsequent work on the dynamics of nationalism revealed how those
minorities were then tragically replaced by a Turkish Muslim bourgeoisie.

Personally, I was most struck by how, when I was in Turkey, I had not even
been aware there was an Armenian question; we were not taught anything about
it in school. When I came to the United States for my dissertation work, the
opposite held true: I was constantly confronted by Armenians who were often
hostile to me for having killed their ancestors. The sociologist in me
wondered why there was so much silence on this issue in one country and so
much voice in the other. Then this question combined with another, namely
why there existed in Turkey so much prejudice against the minorities (that I
had personally witnessed throughout my life there) and so much state
rhetoric that this was not the case as all Turkish citizens were equal
regardless of religion..

All these factors combined and led me to the study of the Armenian question.

Historical sociology enabled me to study how past events played themselves
out in the present, so I decided to focus on the Armenian question both as
it transpired in the past -- especially in 1915 - as well as how it played
itself out in the present. As I studied the available archival documents
and memoirs, I realized that the official Turkish stand had many problems
and discrepancies all of which suggested that the work done had not been
academic but rather political. Hence I did not set out to take an explicit
stand against the Turkish state; such a stand emerged as my research
findings contradicted those reached by the state. My outspokenness in the
context of the Armenian question thus emerged gradually as I attempted to
communicate what I had found; I think what I did was to merely take an
ethical and scientific approach to the Armenian question as opposed to a
political one.

AB - Can you tell us about the recent developments in the aftermath of the
Istanbul Conference? What effect did it have on the Turkish society and
intellectuals?

FMG - The Istanbul Conference was symbolically very significant because it
challenged the official stand of the Turkish state on the Armenian question
for the first time in Turkish Republican history. It did so by bringing
together a group of like-minded scholars and intellectuals of Turkey who had
formulated an alternate reading and interpretation of the Armenian question.

The immediate effect of the conference was its ability to demonstrate that
there had developed in Turkey a significant civil society, one able and
willing to challenge the hegemonic interpretation of the state.

AB - Did the organizers achieve what they were aiming at?

FMG - The main aim of the organizers was to demonstrate that they could
indeed hold such a conference in Turkey and that they could bring together
an adequate number of scholars to develop an alternative narrative on the
Armenian problem. The organizers were indeed able to create such an
academic space and create a community of like-minded people of Turkish
origin. I think they succeeded in both of these endeavors, but it took a
lot of political struggle to get the conference off the ground: it was
postponed the first time and it was almost not held the second time due to
pressures from nationalist segments of the state and the government.

AB - During the last year we have witnessed an unprecedented activism by a
number of Turkish intellectuals, writers and journalist who have challenged
successive Turkish governments' line on the Armenian Genocide. What drove
these people to stand up to the establishment within Turkish Government, the
military, and the intelligence apparatus?

FMG - The increased level of education in Turkey, the growth of civil
society especially after the 1980s as well as the visions of the generations
of the 1960s all coalesced around the aspiration to make Turkey a more
democratic country, one where human rights superseded the concerns of the
state. Even though there had always been such intellectuals throughout
Turkish Republican history, the intellectuals who led this movement finally
reached a critical mass that the state could not suppress -- the end of the
Cold War and the subsequent shift of focus from national security and
stability to democracy also supported their stand. As a result of all these
developments, the stronghold of the state over society started to fracture.

AB - We have noticed that even though righteous Turks are speaking against
the Government line they still refuse to use the term "Genocide" to describe
what happened to the Armenians in 1915. How do you explain this
contradiction?

FMG - The term genocide has become an increasingly politicized term; it is
so politicized at this point that I think it does not foster research and
analysis but instead hinders it. The sides polarize their positions as they
either employ or refuse to employ the term. The Armenians rightfully insist
on its usage as they believe this term that best reflects the tragedy they
experienced in the Ottoman Empire especially around 1915. Yet the Turks not
only refuse to use the term, but they have also suppressed the dissemination
of the tragic events of 1915 as a consequence of which there formed
generations of Turkish youth whose experiences and knowledge were totally
devoid of 1915. Given this dramatic epistemological discrepancy in relation
to what happened in 1915, even though what happened in 1915 certainly fits
the definition of genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations convention,
I find it more heuristic and strategically more prescient to employ instead
the term kital (large scale massacres) that the Ottomans themselves employed
when referring to this tragedy. I personally think that both Turkish
society and the state would be more willing to listen and engage in
constructive dialogue that would eventually lead to recognition if what
happened in 1915 was discussed at first in and of itself.

AB - I have noticed that the Turkish Diaspora is more hardline on the issue
of the Armenian Genocide than Turks in Turkey. This phenomenon is puzzling
since Turks outside of Turkey in contrast with their compatriots in Turkey
are free of intimidation and pressure to pursue the truth and speak their
mind. Do you have any thoughts on this puzzling situation?

FMG - The more conservative stand of the diaspora in relation to those in
the country of origin has puzzled scholars for some time. The explanation
in the literature is that those who migrate to a new country bring with them
the political framework of their country of origin at that particular
juncture: hence time in their country of origin freezes for them at the
moment of their departure. Unless the immigrants are scholars who have the
chance to update their political standpoint, they get stuck at that
particular time in the past. Even though these immigrants may indeed
experience no intimidation and pressure to pursue the truth and speak their
mind, they are incapable to apply these principles of their host society to
their society of origin. Another factor that fosters this conservative
stand of the diaspora is positively correlated to the degree of anxiety and
insecurity they feel in the host society: the diaspora tries to compensate
for this insecurity and lack of self confidence by adhering to the norms and
values with which they have arrived.

In the case of the Turkish diaspora, these norms and values are often
nationalist ones that they had been socialized into by the state. Starting
at their point of arrival, the members of the Turkish diaspora reproduce
these norms and values of the Turkish state at a level of intensity that is
directly related to the degree of their unsuccessful social and cultural
adaptation to the host country. In my personal interaction with the Turkish
diaspora, I have often been struck by two things: (i) how their image of
Turkey is totally out of date in that they think Turkey is socially still
like when they had left it, and (ii) how unaware they are of the social
conditions of the host country, in this case the United States, that they
live in. Let me give you an example: When my colleague Ron Suny then at the
University of Chicago and I organized in the year 2000 the second
Armenian-Turkish workshop at the University of Michigan where I teach, a few
organizations of the Turkish diaspora came together and wrote a letter to
the president of my university protesting our workshop because they had
heard that the term 'genocide' was employed by some of the workshop
participants. It turns out the Turkish Consulate in Chicago had contacted
them and asked that they protest; they enthusiastically did as they were
told without even bothering to contact me first, a Turkish citizen living in
the diaspora like themselves, to find out what was going on.

One could argue that by writing the letter of protest, they were exercising
their right to freely express their views; they indeed were, but the content
of the letter also demonstrated how out of touch with the U.S. academia they
really were. In the letter, they went on to instruct the president of the
University of Michigan as to who should have been invited to the workshop
instead. Anyone who knows anything about universities in the United States
is aware that the faculty has total intellectual independence in organizing
workshops -- they invite whoever they wish to talk on whatever topics they
want to discuss - and that this intellectual independence from social and
political pressure is held sacred by all, especially the university
administration.

Why did the conservative Turkish diaspora engage in such self-destructive
behavior? The universities in Turkey often function as extensions of the
state apparatus; faculty is often treated like civil servants of a state
that finds in itself the right to control the thoughts and actions of
faculty. The Turkish diaspora organizations took this Turkish reality and
assumed that is how things worked in the United States as well: this shows
how out of touch with American society and educational institutions they
really are. Needless to say, not only were they totally ineffectual, but I
as a Turk was embarrassed by what they had done because the university
administration rightfully formed a very negative impression of them. I know
that many of their efforts to promote the Turkish state view in the United
States are just as ineffectual. Interestingly enough, rather than blaming
their own actions for this failure, they keep blaming others, namely either
the Armenian diaspora which they claim is so strong that it renders the
Turkish one ineffectual or, in a very nationalistic move that reifies their
rigid stands even more, that American society and/or the West is out to get
Turkey and is therefore unwilling to understand what Turkey is all about. I
have been trying to get them to be self critical but have had no luck
whatsoever, especially with the older generations.

AB - In a follow-up to my earlier question, we have witnessed that outspoken
Turks like Elif Shafak, Taner Akcam, Halil Berktay, yourself and many others
have been threatened and labeled traitors. Do you think this attitude is
widespread in Turkish society?

FMG - The threats and stigma we all experience is a natural consequence of
the nationalist rhetoric that dominates and hegemonizes Turkish society and
state. The media, public opinion as well as popular culture in Turkey have
all been very successfully controlled by the state up until now. It is hard
to know how many individuals and groups go along with this control because
of their personal beliefs along the same lines; my hunch is that many do so
because they do not know otherwise and they have often not had the option to
think otherwise. Yet the internet is a very significant mode of
communication that enables such conditions to alter dramatically, and it has
indeed started to do so among especially the Turkish youth. It is hard to
know how widespread this critical stand against the hegemony of the Turkish
state is, but I can tell you that it is definitely on the rise.

[Gavur]

Cont...

AB - Some Europeans have been using the Armenian Genocide to undermine
Turkey's image and thus scuttle Turkey's attempt to join the European Union.

Wouldn't be it wiser for the Turkish government to come to terms with its
history and thus remove the Armenian Genocide from the accession
negotiations?

FMG - I agree with you that it would certainly be wiser for the Turkish
government to come to terms with its history and thus remove the Armenian
question from the accession negotiations. Yet coming to terms with history
will be a long, arduous process for Turkey because the Turks have, in
addition to the Armenian problem, many other silences in their history that
they would need to confront. Also, the continuities between the Ottoman
Empire and the Turkish nation-state especially in relation to the treatment
of the minorities needs to be further studied. Added to this is the
necessity to make Turkish state and society aware of how the lack of
accountability for past injustices in history has actually sanctioned the
use of violence by the state against society: only when this dimension is
further developed can the people in Turkey understand why the resolution of
the Armenian question is so crucial not only for the Armenians, but also for
the well-being of all the citizens of Turkey as well as for the health of
Turkish democracy.

AB - Do you think the Turkish government's strategy to leave the issue of
the Armenian genocide to historians and forming a historians' commission to
investigate the issue, especially after the International Association of
Genocide Scholars open letter to Prime Minister Erdogan, is a failed
strategy...trying to avoid the unavoidable?

FMG - Even though I fully support the opening of the archives in Turkey,
Armenia and the Armenian diaspora so as to enable the historians to fully
study the events surrounding 1915 in detail, I concur on this point with the
Ottoman historian Şukru Hanioğlu that such a move in and of itself would not
solve the problem. This is so because all documents are socially
constructed so historians can therefore come up with many varied
interpretations of the same document -- debates surrounding varying
interpretations could take decades to settle. This is so because the
principles of academic research are not political in nature; scholars do not
approach documents with the intent to settle international disputes or to
formulate policies, but rather to get closer to understanding historical
events: the former falls into the field of other experts.

Also, such a strategy totally overlooks the human dimension; what is most
important for me as a human being, for instance, is the emotional relief
that the recognition of the tragedy of 1915 shall bring to both the
Armenians as well as the Turks. The Armenians can then finally start, with
the support of the Turks, the much needed grieving process. The Turks in
turn can assume responsibility for their past injustices and commence to
live, as a consequence of such recognition, in a much kinder, gentler
society where they tolerate those who are different from them.

AB - Why do you think that despite over whelming historical evidence the
Turkish state remains so intransigent in its recognition of the Armenian
Genocide?

FMG - Why the Turkish state remains so intransigent in its recognition of
the Armenian tragedy in spite of the overwhelming historical evidence is
actually the topic of my next book I am working on at the moment. What I
have observed in my analysis is a 'layering of denial' that spans from the
last decades of the Ottoman Empire into the Turkish nation-state to the
present, so at first this layering has to be deconstructed. Then the
Turkish state needs to recognize the continuity between the empire and the
republic, both in terms of social actors as well as their actions. Such a
reorientation would in turn lead to a rewriting of the official nationalist
history to include the narratives of all its minorities, past and present.

The emerging portrait from this endeavor will end up discrediting many
individuals and institutions to destabilize the existing power structure in
Turkey. So the end result would be much less glorious than the Turkish
nationalism that exists today to legitimate the status quo; even though the
ensuing Turkish state and society would be much more healthy and democratic,
I think the reservations I discussed explain why the Turkish state is so
intransigent.

AB - We have seen conflicting messages from the AKP government on the
Armenian Genocide. What is your evaluation of the Islamist government's
position on this issue?

FMG - The position of the AK Party government on this issue - as on many
issues other than the economic ones that they seem to handle most ably - is
not at all fixed but rather in flux depending on the vagaries of political
events. Yet I should start off by noting that I am actually delighted that
it is not fixed, for all previous Turkish governments had very fixed
nationalist stands on the Armenian issue and such stands are much harder to
engage in negotiations than a fluctuating one. Probably the most
significant interconnected foreign policy matter that has put the Armenian
issue on the agenda of AK party is Turkey's accession talks with the
European Union. AK Party very much advocates such membership because the
political survival of the party itself is predicated on it. This
interconnection had not yet become clear when AK Party initially joined the
Republican People's Party in signing the letter sent from the Turkish
parliament to the British one asking that the contents of the Blue Book
regarding the Armenian massacres of 1915 be dismissed as mere propaganda.

This embarrassing move was followed by the postponement of the Istanbul
conference in May 2005 when the Turkish Minister of Justice Cemil Cicek made
in the parliament the unfortunate remark that the participants of the
Istanbul Conference were 'stabbing the nation in the back.' Though the
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and the foreign minister Abdullah Gul,
both out of the country at the time, immediately stated that Cicek's remarks
were personal and did not at all reflect the stand of the government, it was
evident at that juncture that there was no set party policy regarding the
Armenian issue. Still, they went ahead and stated the conference ought to
take place because Turkey was a country where all such issues could be
freely talked about. Such a stand in and of itself was distinct and more
progressive from the nationalist stands of all other political parties in
that AK Party agreed the conference ought to take place and also did not
insist that the official state position be represented at the conference.

When September 2005 came around , AK Party expressed its desire that the
postponed conference ought to actualize before the EU accession talks on
October 3rd. Foreign minister Gul stated to the conference organizers that
he would have personally attended the conference himself had he not been at
the UN right around that time. Such tacit approval was not sufficient to
actualize the conference, however, since some ultra-nationalists filed a
lawsuit to stop it once again. The initial tacit approval then became
public as all of the social actors of AK party including Cemil Cicek came
out and expressed their support of the conference.

AB - When do you think the Turkish state will finally come to term with the
historical facts and recognize the Armenian Genocide?

FMG - I personally wish they would do so by 2015 because that year would be
the centennial of 1915. Getting there is going to require a long and
difficult journey, however, because there is so much that the Turkish state
has to come to terms with before reaching that stage. In this context, I
should note that a lot of responsibility is going to fall upon the Armenian
diaspora due to the conditions of the other two political actors, namely the
Turkish and Armenian states. Turks never learned about the historical facts
of 1915 because of the suppression of the Turkish state in the name of
nationalism; ironically, the Armenians in the Armenian Republic likewise
have not had a chance until very recently to research and generate
scholarship on 1915 because of the Soviet influence that discouraged such
research for fear that it would generate nationalism. As a consequence, the
only community that was able to remember and research 1915 was the Armenian
diaspora. Most of the Armenian diaspora also reside in the lands of two
major world powers, namely the United States and the European Union that are
both very interested in the resolution of this conflict in a way that
satisfies all parties, including the West.

The Armenian diaspora will need to work with both the Turkish and Armenian
states and societies and hopefully help both sides shed their nationalistic
stands on this issue to eventually reach reconciliation. Yet the current
situation is not yet at this point of development: the foreign policy of the
Turkish Republic is still staunchly nationalistic with some glimmers of hope
for a more reconciliatory stand as there is some informal discussion as to
what recognition, compensation and the like ought to entail - the
possibility of Turkey's accession to the European Union also very much
accelerates such constructive discussions. The foreign policy of the
Armenian Republic used to be much less nationalistic in relation to 1915
under Ter Petrossian, but seems to be becoming increasingly so, especially
after the Karabagh standoff. The political stand of the Armenian diaspora
is likewise unclear; while there are many progressive elements that I am
most in touch with, I am also told that there are some very nationalistic
segments that might resist and therefore hinder the negotiations as much as,
of not more than those elements in the two republics. And an additional
factor that is going to complicate matters is that the diaspora is scattered
throughout the world with many organizations that claim to represent it;
this situation makes its dynamics much more politically volatile and harder
to comprehend. Yet I believe that we can work through all these obstacles
altogether once we develop a clear vision of what we want to see
accomplished.

AB - During the UCLA conference you mentioned that around 2 million Turkish
citizens might be of Armenian origin. Can you elaborate on this topic? What
were the circumstances which forced them to become Turks? What do they feel
about their dual identities? What role can they play in bringing our two
peoples together...etc?

FMG - The large number of Turks of Armenian ancestry was for me the most
interesting discovery of the Istanbul conference. We did know that there
had been in 1915 many Armenians who were forcibly converted, daughters
forcibly married off, and many babies and children taken in by Turkish
Muslim families, but there were no public accounts provided by such people
(this is understandable given the silencing that went on for so long in
Turkey regarding these matters). We do not know how many Turks there are of
Armenian descent, but I can tell you that Hrant Dink of Agos newspaper is
especially interested in this matter; the 1-2 million figure I mentioned is
based on my conversations with him. I just learned that it was Etyen
Mahcupyan, the prominent Turkish Armenian intellectual, who estimated that
there are probably 1.5 million such families. Ayşe Gul Altınay of Sabancı
University just informed me that she, along with some other colleagues, has
started to interview such families and has conducted 16 in-depth interviews
so far. She noted that each and every one case reveals very stunning
insights; you can reach her through her-email address posted on the Sabancı
University website.

The other information I have on this matter is anecdotal. I met at the
Istanbul conference with Fethiye Cetin whose very moving account about
discovering in her late twenties the Armenian identity of her maternal
grandmother was recently published in Turkey under the title Anneannem (My
Maternal Grandmother). I asked her as to whether she knew of any other
people of similar ancestry and she told me she is contacted by at least 100
such people a month; she is also working with Ayşe Gul Altınay on the
research project I mentioned above... At the conference, Halil Berktay also
remarked that there were quite a number of people attending who had recently
discovered their Armenian ancestry and who therefore wanted to attend to
learn more about their silenced past. I personally met two of them there
who contacted me because they wanted me to help them trace their relatives;
they stated they felt enriched by the knowledge especially since they were
now able to trace relatives they did not know they had and, as a
consequence, had very moving reunions. As you can imagine, they are
particularly upset by the stubborn stand of the Turkish state on this issue.

I told them that they, as individuals who concomitantly belong to two
communities and who are therefore able to move beyond the restricting
nationalisms that exist in both, could play a very significant role in
spearheading recognition and reconciliation.

Aris Babikian is a journalist, lecturer, Human Rights activist and member of
the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada. He is also on the
Board of Presidents of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council of Canada

The above interview appeared in the year end (2005) edition of the
tri-lingual Horizon Weekly. Horizon is the largest Canadian-Armenian paper.

It is published in Montreal and distributed Canada wide.