Taner Akcam: I can show very easily genocidal intent of Ottoman Turkey

[Yegoyan]

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was in Washington to meet with President Bush to discuss mounting tensions between the Turks and Kurdish rebel factions in Northern Iraq.

Also on the agenda was the Armenian Genocide resolution which passed in the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month. The Medill News Service spoke with two experts who have challenged Turkey’s position on the Armenian question and asked them to respond to Erdogan’s comments.

Turkish scholar Taner Akcam, author of “A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility,” is one of the first Turkish academics to acknowledge and discuss openly the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1915.

Edward Alexander is a retired U.S. Foreign Service officer and author, born in New York to Armenian parents who fled Turkey.

"The evidence is overwhelming and to many Armenians, it is utterly preposterous for anyone, especially the Turkish government, to deny what is historical truth. For my research, one of my sources was the German press. My other source was the cables that were sent to Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador in Turkey at the time of the genocide. These are documents that cannot be refuted. In addition, I did research eye-witness reports in Merseburg, Germany," Alexander said.

For his part, Mr Akcam said, "Our Prime Minister is wrong because we can prove the genocidal intent without any problems. One set of documentation are the trials in Istanbul between 1919 and 1921. These are the indictments, verdicts, hand-written testimonies and eye-witness accounts which were recorded during that time. There is a lot of evidence here showing the killing of the Armenians. The originals of these documents are not known. We assume that they have been destroyed after Turkish nationalists took over Istanbul. [Turkish officials] only trust the documents in prime ministerial archive today in Istanbul. I can show very easily, based on prime ministerial archives, the genocidal intent of Ottoman Turkey. I will publish a book in the Turkish language in 2008 where I am presenting more than 500 documents from prime ministerial archives in Istanbul."

[Joseph]

Is It Still Genocide if Your Allies Did It?
A U of M professor fights to right a historical wrong

Minnesota Law & Politics
December/January 2008, no. 167

http://www.lawandpolitics.com/minnesota/Is-It-Still-Genocide-if-Your-Allies-Did-It/cef7381e-fe46-102a-aeb9-000e0c6dcf76.html

Dr. Taner Akcam is one of the world's leading authorities on the
Armenian genocide. He is a visiting professor of history at the Center
for Holocaust Studies at the University of Minnesota and is the author
of A Shameful Act, which is the definitive account of the genocide and
Turkish responsibility. Journalist Peter Schilling interviews him
here.

PS: How did you get involved in researching the Armenian Genocide?

TA: I began in 1988 at the Hamburg Social Research Institute, working
on the history of torture and violence in Turkish political
culture. At first, I was studying and researching later Ottoman
history. However, if one looks at this time period, one comes
inevitably upon the massacres of 1894-1896 and the deportation and
killing of the Armenians in 1915.

In 1991, the Institute launched a project to investigate whether or
not the [lessons of the] Nuremburg Trials could be universalized. At
the time there were no serious discussions about this subject. We
wanted to know whether one could establish a court that would punish
officials for the crimes they committed in the name of their
government or nation. Within that project, I suggested looking into
the Istanbul trials of 1919 and 1922 -- these were the trials that
attempted to establish responsibility for the Armenian Genocide. They
were sort of precursors to Nuremburg. So these two components came
together, and I that's how I really started working on the Genocide.

PS: And you're from Turkey? Are you a Muslim?

TA: I grew up in a very secular family. My father was an atheist, but
I grew up, of course, within Islamic culture. I am sure I carry on
much of this Islamic culture in the way I live, but in terms of my
personal convictions, I am very secular.

Please understand that I am a very ordinary Turkish intellectual. I
come from the '68 Generation -- here it was the Hippie Generation, but
we too were against the Vietnam War, American foreign policy, and so
on. As progressive people of that time in Turkey, we believed that we,
Turks created our nation-state in a fight against the great
imperialist powers. We assigned a very negative role to the Christian
minorities in Turkey, to the Armenians. To us, they were
collaborators. This is how we perceived ourselves and the world, and
how we saw Turkey's past. Since we saw all Christians in Turkey as
allied with the imperialist state, we had a very negative image of
them. As progressives, we always thought it was better not to touch on
the topic of the Armenian Genocide, because to do so would be to enter
a very dark, suspicious terrain, which could not be understood
easily. It was not easy for me to decide to work on the Genocide. At
first I thought: I'm working on a very suspicious terrain, better not
to go in, actually.

PS: You were active in protests from an early age, correct?

TA: In my early period, in the early 1970s, I was in high school when
the student movement was very active. This was a huge anti-war
movement. When I started studying at the University it was already
1971, and 1971 was the military coup d'état in Turkey. We were under
the control of military. At the beginning, we students were trying to
reform the universities. We wanted students to have a voice. Later,
they became radicalized, describing themselves as a socialist and
democratic revolutionary movement. In 1974 there was the first free
election in Turkey. The students became active, and I was one of these
student activists influenced by his older brothers in the '68
movement. We wanted reform at the universities.

Now, this is important to understand because of the ongoing Turkish
campaign in the United States to discredit me as a terrorist. The
story begins with my arrest in 1974 for leafleting. At that time, the
students didn't have representation at the universities. Our major
demand was to have the freedom to establish a student organization to
allow the university to hear us.

In order to distribute a leaflet in Turkey you had to go to the
central police station and get special permission. You had to have
this permit in your possession while distributing literature. However,
even if you had this permit -- as I did -- you could still get
arrested and held in jail for two or three days; which is exactly what
happened to me. That was my "terrorist act": distributing leaflets --
with permission, mind you -- which said I opposed the Turkish invasion
of Cyprus. I was against war. So the police arrested me and I spent
two days in prison.

Now today, in the United States, you can go online and read about
Taner Akçam's terrorist activities in 1974. It's very simple in the
United States to stigmatize someone as a terrorist. With that label
attached to someone's name, you can portray Al Qaeda and Taner Akçam
in the same picture.

PS: If you go to Google and type in "Holocaust", you get to the Jewish
Holocaust immediately, and it takes some time and quite a few pages
before you get to the crackpots whose Web sites attempt to discredit
it. But with "Armenian Genocide," you get "Armenian Genocide Lie" on
the first page, nine entries down on the day I checked (May 10). The
famed British journalist and Middle East expert Robert Fisk argues --
quite effectively -- that we would think it insane to give equal time
to a Holocaust denial group, but that is often par for the course on
the subject of the Armenian Genocide. In 2006, John Evans, the United
States' ambassador to Armenia, was even recalled by the
U. S. government for using the term 'genocide' in a speech, and he was
replaced by Richard Hoagland, who is on record as stating that what
happened in Turkey doesn't qualify as a genocide. Since we know that
Turkey opposes mention of the Armenian Genocide, I have to wonder why
they are able to exert this level of control?

TA: Turkey uses its political importance in the Middle East to
pressure the U.S. and other countries not to acknowledge the Armenian
Genocide. Especially the U.S. and Israel have vital interests in
keeping good relations with Turkey, so both states have enormous
problems to face. Why Turkey doesn't acknowledge the historical
wrongdoing is one part of the story. The other part of the history is
why the U.S. and Israel let themselves be pressured by
Turkey. According to me actually this is a wrong attitude and doesn't
help to solve the problem; just the opposite, it lingers the problem
and makes it more complicated. I think a strategic partnership that
hasn't been based on truth cannot stay healthy in the long term.

Actually, in 2006, John Evans, the United States ambassador to
Armenia, was denied a Foreign Service award for "constructive dissent"
because he had characterized the Armenian Genocide as such in public
presentations throughout the U.S. The State Department forced him to
recant, then recalled him from his post.

During confirmation hearings to replace Evans, ambassadorial nominee
Richard Hoagland acknowledged the "mass killings and forced exile of
as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire." At
one point highlighting the issue of the perpetrators' intent, Hoagland
strenuously avoided characterizing this "human tragedy" as a genocide
-- without stating, however, that what happened in Turkey did NOT
qualify. The Senate declined his nomination.

Since Evans' departure, Armenia has been without a U.S. ambassador.

Those who argue that there are two sides to the story -- the same
people who wouldn't dream of saying such a thing about the Holocaust
-- are not doing so because of strong counter-evidence, but only
because of political pressure from Turkey. According to the Ottoman
documents, there can be no question that the Ottoman government
consciously and deliberately destroyed a part of its own
population. There is plenty of evidence there.

Acknowledging the Genocide is not a problem of scholarship; it has to
do with Turkey's military and political strength in the Middle
East. The United States needed Turkey in the Cold War, needed Turkey
against the Soviet Union, and needs Turkey today -- not only in the
Iraq war, but also in order to preserve the energy routes. Turkey's
relationship with Israel is also very important. Turkey is the only
country in the Middle East with which Israel has peaceful
relations. For these reasons, the Armenian Genocide is highly
politicized.

PS: After you were involved in this Nuremberg project, where did you
go from there?

TA: In Hamburg, I wrote my doctoral dissertation about the Istanbul
Military Tribunals in 1919-1922 and the attitude of the Turkish
National Movement towards the Armenian Genocide. The German edition,
which appeared in 1996, was around 200 pages long. The Turkish edition
was 600 pages. A substantially revised American edition came out in
2006 as A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of
Turkish Responsibility.

PS: And when did you start noticing harassment because of your pursuit
of this subject?

TA: Very early. 1996, I think.

By way of background, I couldn't go back to Turkey before 1993. With
my early 1970s activity in the student movement, and some journal
articles I wrote stating that the Kurds existed in Turkey, I was
punished under Article 141 of the Turkish Penal Code. This was a law
forbidding you to write about the Kurds. You also couldn't mention
class struggle in Turkey. I wrote about a worker's strike in Istanbul
and the right of workers to establish a trade union, topics which were
also forbidden under Article 141. This law, by the way, had been
adapted from the penal code of Mussolini's Fascist regime in 1936.

So in 1976 I was arrested and sentenced to prison for eight years,
nine months and twenty days. I escaped from prison in 1977 and fled to
Germany where I received political asylum and became a German
citizen. In 1991, while Turkey was applying for membership in the
European Union, Paragraph 141 was rescinded and my conviction was
annulled. My issue regarding the escape from prison had already lapsed
under the statute of limitations. Suddenly, I could go back to
Turkey. I returned in 1993 with my family, intending to establish a
documentation and research center on the late Ottoman and modern
Turkish history. I worked with a private university in Istanbul in
1996 to establish this institute. But within a year, the Turkish
Secret Service distributed a file against me amongst the scholars at
the university, and they had to terminate contact with me because it
was too risky. My family and I had to leave again for Germany.

There were and are no criminal charges pending against me in
Turkey. Despite this, I have been constantly targeted by Turkish
media, by the nationalists, and in certain political circles. In 2004,
because of the strengthening nationalist movement in Turkey, the penal
code was changed to prohibit any statement that challenges the
official Turkish position. This is the infamous Article 301 that
exists today. Now there are many scholars and writers who espouse the
official Turkish position for fear of reprisal.

Recently there was a complaint against me because I supported a
friend, Hrant Dink, an Armenian journalist in Istanbul and an editor
of a weekly Armenian/Turkish newspaper, who was charged under this
law. He was assassinated in January 2007.

Now, Article 301 doesn't include anything specifically about the
Genocide. Since the charge of "insulting Turkishness" is purposefully
vague, some public prosecutor had decided that Dink's use of the term
"genocide" constituted an insult. He was sentenced at the end of 2005
for the crime of insulting Turkishness. In 2006 he was put on trial
for using the 'g' word.

So I wrote an opinion piece saying, essentially, "Here I am, I am also
using the word 'genocide', please put me on trial." There was a
criminal investigation, but the prosecutor dismissed the
complaint. Since 1993 I have been able to travel to Turkey without any
problem.

PS: Do you feel that if you went back, you would be prosecuted?

TA: No. The basic problem is the rise of nationalism in Turkey. Ever
since my friend's assassination, many intellectuals have been living
under police protection. I too could get police protection, but my
life would be in danger. In fact, Hrant Dink's assassination showed us
that the part of the police were complicit in the murder. You don't
know whether or not you can trust the police.

PS: Do you want to go back?

TA: I would love to go to Turkey. I don't plan to live there, but I do
plan to go back.

[Joseph]

Part 2

PS: What brought you to the University of Minnesota?

TA: I came to the United States because my work in Hamburg was almost
at an end. I couldn't work on the Armenian Genocide and find a
teaching position. So I came here because I didn't want to change my
topic. I started at the University of Michigan as a visiting
scholar. Then I came to Minnesota to give a lecture -- in fact, I gave
three -- and the University liked them enough to give me a contract. I
have a visiting status, but I am very happy here.

PS: So the research that you did for A Shameful Act you pulled from
Ottoman documents?

TA: Actually my original dissertation was not based on Ottoman
archival materials, but rather on two different categories of
evidence. There were documents from the 1919 and 1922 Istanbul trials,
the indictments, verdicts and minutes from meetings. These had been
published in the daily newspapers of the time as well as in the
official gazette of the government. I mostly used these for my
PhD. Later, some of this information came from published memoirs.

In following years, I was able to work in the Ottoman Archive in
Istanbul and I received very valuable documents from this
Archive. This is the government archive, like the National Archives
here in the U.S. In A Shameful Act I relied on these documents. The
papers from the Interior Ministry were crucial to my study. They were
catalogued just recently, in the 1990s, some in early 2000. They have
still been working on cataloguing the documents.

PS: What would prompt a group that wants to hide this information to
open it to the public?

TA: International pressure. You couldn't get these archives in the
1980s, but now the U.S. and Europe were saying, essentially, "Look,
you claim that nothing happened, and yet you deny access to your
archives." In the 1990s, the Turkish authorities launched a campaign
to say, "Here we are, we are opening our archives."

Now, I would like clarify one point: the archives were always open to
the public, but the question was whether or not the material related
to this period was catalogued and available to researchers. If it's
not catalogued, it becomes nearly impossible to examine. Also, in the
past if you asked for material regarding the Armenians, you would be
interrogated. They eased the working conditions in the archives so
that it became easier to get access. The working conditions are
better, the cataloguing has improved, and now that there's a new
governing party, it's easier to do research on this topic.

PS: Does this political party welcome news about the Genocide?

TA: This party is more open than previous parties.

PS: So there are these two parties, and one is more open-minded. But
then there's a rise of nationalism. Do they both share hope of joining
the E.U.?

TA: No. The people who are challenging the Turkish position on
Genocide and the governing party are in favor of joining the E.U. and
want more democracy, more respect for human rights. But the resurgent
nationalists and the Turkish Social Democrat Party are all very
clearly against the E.U. and don't want to hear anything regarding the
Armenian Genocide. The position of governing party towards the
Armenian Genocide is more complicated. At the dawn of their power they
had a more moderate position, but over the years the pressure from
nationalists has become so strong that they have, on the surface at
least, changed their previous position. I can give one example:
initially they were inclined to open the border with Armenia, to
support an open discussion in Turkish society, etc.

PS: Is this the group that is primarily behind the efforts to
discredit you and others who look into the Armenian Genocide?

TA: That group is not the governing party. The group who organizes the
campaign against me in Turkey and here in the U.S. is a part of what
we call the "Deep State," the military-bureaucratic complex. This
non-elected government body is behind the campaign to discredit
Genocide scholars. The nationalists and the Social Democrat Party are
behind this effort. Here in the U.S. there are some groups organized
and controlled mostly by Turkish diplomats. I can give three names:
ATAA (Assembly of Turkish American Associations); Turkish Forum (an
e-mail group, coordinated between different initiatives in different
states in the U.S.) and a Web site, TallArmenianTale.com (one of the
most popular Armenian Genocide denial sites).

Definitely there are Turkish diplomats who nourish these sites with
information. I mean, who could have given TallArmenianTale.com the
exact date of my arrest in 1974? Even I had forgotten that! It was for
leafleting! And there is no record of this in any journal or
newspaper. This is what that Web site claims is a terrorist act. There
must be some police officer in Ankara from whom they got the
information. All these groups that I mentioned (ATAA, Turkish Forum,
TallArmenianTale.com, some diplomats and police officers from Turkey)
are very well connected.

PS: Let's talk about this recent problem you've been having. Recently
you tried to go to Montreal for a speaking engagement and were
detained. What happened?

TA: The McGill University Faculty of Law and Concordia University had
invited me to lecture on my book A Shameful Act. At the airport in
Montreal I was detained for almost five hours, without any
explanation. Meanwhile, my hosts contacted the Ministry of Public
Safety and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian
Identity. Because of this intervention, I was issued a special
one-week visa.

On my insistence that I had the right to know exactly why I had been
detained, I was shown a printout of my Wikipedia biography. For the
last year, that page had been persistently vandalized by anonymous
"contributors" seeking to label me as a terrorist. Since then I have
received apologies from Wikipedia editors, and my biography is now
protected from unauthorized changes.

At any rate, on my way back from Montreal, an American immigration
officer advised me not to travel internationally until I could get
this information removed from my customs dossier. I still don't know
the extent of the problem! My lawyer wrote to the immigration office
and we couldn't get any answer.

Before going to Montreal I had applied for a Green Card, and when you
do that you get an automatic travel permit and working permit, just
for submitting the application. My daughter has her permit. I
haven't. It hasn't been issued. Today I am still on an H1 visa, which
is a special visa for scholars.

PS: But you still can't travel internationally?

TA: I can travel internationally, but I might not be able to
return. The U.S. officers could deny reentry. They could tell me to
return to my home country and wait for this to clear up. My lawyer and
I are still waiting for news about my Green Card. Now we're working on
getting an extension of my visa and waiting to hear about the
so-called problem.

[Note: since this interview, Dr. Akçam 's status has changed and he is
able to travel internationally.]

PS: That must be frustrating.

TA: Of course! Someone writes in Wikipedia that I'm a terrorist, and
suddenly I can't travel or have some trouble in my Green Card
application process. We have letters from senators, both Norm Coleman
and Amy Klobuchar, and we're hoping for acceleration on my
case. Acceleration of a case that has been delayed already.

I've already canceled five international appearances, three
conferences in Germany and Italy, a book tour in Britain and
Holland. I canceled all of them. My book has been translated into
Dutch, and I can't go there to talk about it.

PS: As a campaign to silence you, this has been horribly effective.

TA: Not only has it been very successful in keeping me from travel,
it's been difficult to work. I have to focus on the legal problem,
writing letters to institutions, meeting with senators and my
lawyers. I'm occupied, stressed... this is exactly what they
wanted. My publishing house in Istanbul is waiting for an article, and
I haven't had time to finish it.

PS: Once this is cleared up, what are your plans?

TA: I'm working on some research projects. I just finished work with
another leading scholar of the Armenian Genocide, Vahakn Dadrian. We
are writing a two-volume book on the indictments and verdicts and
minutes of the Istanbul trials. This is a very important first-hand
account of the Genocide.

I'm also working on a book I call the Demographic Policy. My central
argument in A Shameful Act was that the Armenian Genocide was not an
isolated act against Armenians but a part of a demographic policy
enacted during World War I. It had two main components. One was
against the Muslim non-Turkish population, who were redistributed,
relocated and resettled among the Turkish population with the aim of
assimilation. The second was against the Christian population, the
Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians. The goal was to get the Christians
out of Anatolia, what we now know as Turkey-to forcibly move them to
Greece or Iran. Or, in the case of the Armenians, to eliminate them
altogether.

In 1914, Anatolia was about 25 to 30 percent Christian. After the war
it was 3 to 4 percent. The aim was to reduce the Christian population
to no more than 5 or 10 percent so that they would have little sway in
Turkey. Based on Ottoman documents we can prove this policy
existed. The genocidal intent can be shown. What I began in A Shameful
Act I will conclude in this book, based only on Ottoman documents.

PS: What would you like to see as the result of your scholarship? Do
you feel that knowing about the Genocide actually helps make Turkey a
stronger country?

TA: This is an important point. The military-bureaucratic complex, the
ruling elite, still believes that facing history is jeopardizing
Turkey's security. They believe that there is an intertwining, a link,
between facing history and national security. This is the meaning
behind the basic argument behind the Turkish denial position. They
argue that genocide -- which they call relocation and deportation --
was due to the security concern during the First World War. They argue
that the Armenian population was a threat to Turkish security during
the war.

Today, talking about the Genocide is considered a threat to national
security. That is why they call us traitors. If they openly talk about
the Genocide -- or what happened to the Greeks and the Kurds -- they
think Turkey will be partitioned, even now. They consider the Genocide
claims as a big plan against Turkey; they believe that the United
States wants to partition Turkey. Within the rising tide of
nationalism, they believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq in order to
create a Kurdish state. If you establish this state it would take over
a part of Turkey.

They believe that the U.S. wants to revive the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres,
which would partition Anatolia among Greeks, Kurds and Armenians.

Any part of talking about history is regarded as part of a master plan
to partition Turkey. If Turkey acknowledges the Genocide, the
Armenians will want a part of the provinces; if Turkey admits the
wrongdoings against the Kurds, they will want a part; if Turkey
acknowledges the Greek problem, the massacres, the Greeks will want a
part. Facing history is a part of a master plan to break up Turkey:
this is the basic argument. My argument is that we have to find a way
to disentangle security concerns from facing history. These are two
totally separate issues. As long as Turkey doesn't face history, that
will be a security concern. Any security concept which disregards
human rights, which disregards the other national groups, and
considers the Kurds a threat is detrimental in itself. Turkey must
change its security concept.

PS: Playing devil's advocate, do you think there's any truth to the
concept that the U.S. wants to break up Turkey?

TA: No. The U.S. doesn't have this option. Breaking up Turkey would
only bring catastrophe. There is no such interest. But if Turkey
continues to deny the existence of the Kurds, continues to deny the
right of its ethnic minorities, partition could become a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Islamic government is actually more open to acknowledging the
problem, and is looking for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish
situation. But the military is looking for a military solution, and
they consider the Kurds as a treat to Turkey's existence.

PS: So actually, you want a strong Turkish state as much as the
nationalists do?

TA: I want a democratic, free Turkey, one that is a part of the E.U.,
and one that is a part of the Western democratic family. There is no
way to achieve this unless Turkey faces its history.

PS: Hearing what you've said, and hearing the rhetoric of the Bush
Administration and supporters of the Iraq war, it seems odd that the
right wing in America has not embraced your scholarship. Bush
nominated a man for Ambassador to Armenia who obfuscates the Armenian
Genocide, but one would think that someone like yourself, who supports
democracy in a Middle East country and who is writing of essentially
Muslim atrocities against Christians would be welcomed by the
Right. Why is this?

TA: Well, the war in Iraq is another piece of paper altogether. It is
a wrong war, a wrong decision. But regardless of whether it was right
or wrong, if they are honest with their argument -- spreading
democracy in the Middle East -- they have to support the movement in
Turkey toward a free society. If they are supporting the military, who
are challenging this position, then that is a contradiction. This is
what is happening in the U.S. now. If the information in the press is
correct, the American new-conservatives are working with Turkish Deep
State against Turkey's democratization movement.

PS: So you think that contradiction exists?

TA: Regarding the American arguments outwardly and their practice in
the region we can definitely speak of a contraction. But we should
never forget that nation-states don't have moral stances; they only
have interests. It is naïve to think that the U.S. interest in the
Middle East is only to establish democracy. Or U.S. follows certain
moral principles in the region. Just the opposite. The last best
example is what happened in April 2007. On April 27 of this year there
was an "electronic coup d'état" in Turkey. The Turkish military issued
a press release online that threatened the ruling party with a
coup. The E.U. condemned the military immediately and said they
wouldn't allow that to happen. For the first two weeks Americans just
watched, to see who would win. They were pragmatic. If the military
won, they'd be in good position. But five hundred liberals (I was one
of the co-signers) openly challenged the military; we said that the
military has no right to intervene in the democratic process. The
ruling party took a very powerful stance against the Military. Even
Tony Blair, for example, spoke out, it was only the American state
department [that] really waited for two weeks to condemn the
military. This is one of the basic problems of the U.S. in the
region. They have a very bad reputation regarding the democracy and so
they again prove that the people in the Middle East have the right not
to believe the arguments of the U.S. administration. They stay only on
the paper.




İ 2007 Key Professional Media Inc.

[Joseph]

http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/A0216.pdf

“The objective was to get rid of all Armenians”

Taner Akçam, the author of Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur [“The Armenian Issue is Resolved”] states: “We can comfortably assert that in light of these documents, the thesis that what was experienced in 1915 does not fit within the definition of genocide from 1948 is no longer credible.”

By EFNAN ATMACA

It has been exactly one year since the assassination of Hrant Dink. Last Saturday, on this first anniversary, tens of thousands gathered once again “For Hrant, For Justice.” Taner Akçam, whose book, Ermeni Meselesi Hallolunmuştur [“The Armenian Issue Is Resolved”] opens up the debate about what occurred in 1915 with new documentation, has also just been published, and Akçam, who dedicates the book to “my brother Hrant, who will always represent the nobility and virtue of having a conscience… Dear Hrant, everything is as we had spoken…,” both memorialized his friend and brought a new viewpoint to the matter. By building connections, one by one, among new records he was able to obtain, Akçam brings new perspectives to the policies which were enforced against Armenians in 1915. In his book, subtitled Policies Against the Armenians During the War Years According to Ottoman Documents, while revealing each of the many telegrams sent by Talat Pasha, Akcam states that the deportation of 1915 was the last stage of the Turkification policies of that period. In particular, supported by primary sources, he explains how this project was personally developed well in advance by Talat Pasha and put into action through the efforts of the Teşkilat-I Mahsusa (Special Organization). One of the most crucial documents in the book, the one which gives the book its title, is a telegram from Talat Pasha: “The Armenian issue is resolved. There’s no need to stain the nation and the government with extra atrocities.”

Q: The events of 1915 are a huge controversy. The opposing sides of the controversy continually claim to possess and then publish important documents, and argue about whether or not to open up the Ottoman archives …On the other side, there are others who state that in writing about history a “document cult” shouldn’t be created and that the process shouldn’t be reduced to a war of documents. Meanwhile your book is completely based upon documentation…What and how can records tell us anything?

A: If you are being open and honest, historical records can easily provide a general framework for how events occurred. Still, you need to distinguish here between two separate points. First of all, the main issue is the frame, the model you are creating when you are gathering these documents. Secondly is the question of how much do the records you’re presenting truly reflect reality. If someone possesses an understanding of history that is nationalistic and racist, the history they write will reflect that, and by discriminating in the choice of records, they will try to prove that position. Additionally, the records you find and use are products of the ideological and political beliefs of the period in which they were produced. It is for that reason that the question “What is the truth?” is the subject of such serious argument in historical scholarship. One thing is certain, though. The thing called “the truth” is not a thing, not a treasure that is buried somewhere in the ground and it is up to us to dig it up. For example, if a hundred years from now, you were to research the bombing of the Umut Kitabevi (Umut Publishing House) in Şemdinli in 2005, you would find plenty of state documents asserting that the publishing house had been bombed by the PKK. [Translator’s note: The bookstore was bombed by army officers, but law enforcement forces produced some documents to claim that it was the PKK that bombed the bookstore.]

Keeping these two things in mind, nevertheless the place to start is the historic records. You have no other choice. The important thing is to maintain a critical eye when examining any particular document or body of documents. First of all, in order to defend your thesis, you need to present a series of records that is both comprehensive and widespread. Secondly, there should be a continuous “balance and control” relationship between the records you are presenting and the argument you are trying to make. This is precisely what makes history a social science. The use of deep and varied sources of material along with total honesty are the two crucial elements of historical study.

Q: How important are the records in this book?

A: They are the records of a government and a party that managed to deport and kill Armenians in 1915. For the most part, they consist of coded telegrams that were sent by the Ministry of the Interior to the regional offices. When you consider the difficulty of communication in that era through postal services and the like, the importance of these records is even less in doubt. In order to maintain high volume and speedy communications with the regions, the government [at that time] had established a special bureau and by way of that office managed to send short and frank orders to the regional offices. For this reason, these records provide a primary source of information about a party and a state that planned a deportation and killings.

Q: Is it possible to state that, in view of the records which the book brings to light, there is no longer any doubt that what happened was a genocide?

A: Yes, we can comfortably assert that in light of these documents, the thesis that what was experienced in 1915 does not fit within the definition of genocide from 1948 is no longer credible and can be dismissed. The officials of the Turkish government, who view the Ottoman records as the only reliable source, will see that our government records also show that the Union and Progress party followed a policy that endeavored to destroy the Armenians. Nevertheless, there are those who will deny this, and they will continue to deny it. There are many people today, still, who do not believe that the Jews were annihilated by the Nazis. I need to add this: In Turkey, particularly among those who defend the official state position and who claim to be historians, you will hear extremely ignorant comments like “Where is the document to show genocide? Prove it.” Genocide does not have [is not proved with] a single document. The holocaust against the Jews didn’t consist of a document here and a document there. What history and the social sciences do, or should do, is to illustrate the chain of events by way of an accumulated ball of knowledge from as detailed a record of documents as can be produced. As the documents which I published show, how to label the events that are described is a conclusion that you make based upon the documentation. In other words, genocide is identified by a certain picture that is revealed. You give the picture that name, which is why the picture you present has to be created by way of hundreds of tiny pieces of information. As I state in my book, in trying to understand and describe what occurred in 1915, I did not have a special purpose to “prove” genocide. I find this kind of approach to be deficient and wrong and more properly the duty of a prosecutor or judge. However, after the publication of these documents, I know that those who claim that what occurred in 1915 cannot be called a genocide do not have much more to say.

Q: Almost all of the documents you obtained reveal that the action, in your words “to cleanse Anatolia of Armenians,” was taken by the personal orders of Talat Pasha through the party apparatus, not the state government. Could this be the start of a new period for the Armenian problem?

A: It absolutely should start a new period. Still, you need to remember that these telegrams were sent to the regional offices by Talat Pasha under the aegis of the Ministry of the Interior. While some of the telegrams bear his signature, others do not. Those were signed by the director of the office. These are state documents, not party documents. Nevertheless, when it comes to 1915, I believe and defend the notion that it is extremely important to make the distinction between state and party. As much as the state was taken over by the [Union and Progress] party, the same party which defended a dictatorship had rendered many of the government functions impotent. Every action that the party took was taken by way of government channels. Still, within governmental organs, there were points of resistance against what the Party was doing. If you make a state-party distinction, you begin to see and understand that there were very many honest state officials during that period, who resisted and opposed the murders committed by the Union and Progress party. In fact, -some of the records are the results of the efforts of some honest state officials to have the events recorded within state documents.

Q: What sort of results, both negative and positive, can be expected if Turkey acknowledges the Armenian genocide?

A: There isn’t a single state that I know of or recognize that has been harmed by acknowledging past wrongdoings. Is there any country that you can name which was beset with problems because it faced its history? None! Quite the contrary, those regimes that had tried to cover up history, that had denied the cruelties and injustices that occurred in their past, ended up facing very serious problems and were even demolished. Turkey will only mature and gather praise once it has accepted a historical injustice. A Turkey that manages to face the historical injustices of its past will be able to take its deserved place among world nations with greater ease. So acceptance of the injustices in the past will not only not produce any negative result, it will do the opposite.

I would like to add that there isn’t just one way to face history and acknowledge an injustice. I would like to point out here that there is a difference between scholarship and politics. As a social scientist you may not be very convincing if, in light of all the records and information available, you use some term other than “genocide” to identify the events of 1915, but a government has many alternatives at its disposal when confronting history and acknowledging historic injustices. At the top of the list would be to stop referring to those who discuss it as “traitors,” to stop killing them or dragging them through criminal prosecutions. Freedom of thought and democracy are the preconditions for acknowledging one’s history. Secondly, you will need to develop a language that describes what occurred as morally unacceptable. A language that denounces and condemns murders is absolutely crucial. After that, in harmony with this new language, you need to take some steps that heal this injustice, that work towards fixing it. Here there are dozens, if not hundreds, of ways to go about this. Our politicians need to see that the matter isn’t just about getting stuck on one single word. They need to approach the problem from a rich and wide net of possibilities.

Q: If we look at the matter from the perspective of the [Armenian] Diaspora…in light of these new found documents, what kinds of steps might they take?

A: There is a very misguided belief in Turkey. Unfortunately, both the state and politicians as well as some progressive and democratic intellectuals spread this mistaken belief and information. According to them, the Armenian Diaspora consists of a uniform, monolithic block, and there are some serious differences between the Diaspora and the state of Armenia. According to the beliefs of those who hold this position, the real problem is with the Diaspora; the Armenians of Armenia take a different position on things. This is simply not true. There is no singular, homogeneous, monolithic Diaspora , nor are there any serious differences between the Diaspora and Armenia regarding this subject. The Armenians of the Diaspora are as diverse in opinion as Turkey is divided into thousands of positions. …Among them there are dozens of opinions and positions. I believe that my book in Turkish will not only positively affect Armenian circles but also will have a positive effect in increasing the numbers of those in Turkey who will want to resolve our differences in a peaceful and brotherly way through direct contact.

Q: At the end of the book you state, “What we need is to recognize the reality that we are face to face with an action that is morally, conscientiously unacceptable and to develop a language that expresses that.” What do you mean by this new language?

A: The language of conflict differs from the language of friendship, mutual respect and peace. The language that dominates the administration and mainstream media in Turkey today is one that views the Armenians as the enemy, as a traitor and the Other. It’s a racist and aggressive language. The administration and mainstream media continue to conduct the discourse around what happened in 1915 with a wartime mindset. For that reason, historians like me, who think critically, are branded as traitors, and they organize campaigns against us. Hrant Dink was murdered as a direct result of this language and this mindset.

First of all, we need to put an end to this wartime mindset and to this aggressive language. There are many within Armenian circles who see the problem with the same point of view and use the same aggressive language. We have to establish and develop a humane language that doesn’t view Armenians and Turks as enemies, which doesn’t brand the other as a traitor, doesn’t demean the other, and views Armenians and Turks with respect. Armenians and Turks will be able to construct their future upon this foundation of mutual respect and friendship.

Q: Another of way asking this is, what steps need to be taken so that the matter in question is resolved through democratic means?

A: Prior to anything else happening, the borders between the two countries need to be opened without any preconditions, and diplomatic relations should be initiated. It is very difficult to explain how Turkey can have no objection to maintaining diplomatic relations with Syria, a country with a population of 10 million which has protected Abdullah Öcalan for years and depicts Hatay as falling within their own borders, and yet reject diplomatic relations with Armenia, a country of 3 million. First unconditional diplomatic relations, then the opening of the borders, and then the rest will come. Additionally, Turkey has to see that this matter isn’t just about history. Turkey has to see that it has everything to do with how [Turkey] behaves towards minorities today.

Q: How do you evaluate the Hrant Dink assassination’s effect on resolving the Armenian issue? In particular, would you characterize the way society embraced Dink after the assassination, and the way it lead to openly discussing the Armenian issue, as a positive thing?

A: Hrant Dink was the most beautiful gift that Turkey could present to Armenia and the Diaspora. Hrant was the most important person who could bring these two countries, these two peoples, together. When we were in Yerevan in 2005, I used to tease Hrant that if I were the Turkish government, I’d have him appointed the symbolic, spiritual ambassador to Armenia. Turkey killed its ambassador; it broke the olive branch that it could have extended. What’s worse is that the ones who broke this olive branch are organized within the police and gendarmerie forces. Those officials who knew about the assassination, who planned and directed it, have not only not been punished, they have been rewarded and promoted.

I can’t state enough how important it is for society to embrace Hrant Dink. Within him they [Turkish society] have discovered a dynamic, a potential to bring these two nations together. Both the Armenians in America, who are cursed as “Diaspora” in Turkey, and the people in Istanbul shed tears for Hrant. Hrant brought everyone with a heart together. He’s become the symbol for what needs to be done to resolve this problem. We must build a monument for him and memorialize him.

Q: Could the policy taken by the AKP (Justice and Development Party of Turkey, now in control of the Administration) to act in harmony with an EU framework be a positive step towards resolving this problem?

A: I don’t believe that the AKP has any thoughts on this subject. They don’t give even the slightest indication of having any thoughts. Either they don’t know anything about the subject, or they think it is enough to continue promoting the traditional lies. In fact, if the AKP actually followed their Islamic roots, they could make some serious headway on the subject. There’s only one thing I could ask of the AKP, and that’s to take their Islamic roots seriously.

ERMENI MESELESI HALLOLUNMUŞTUR [THE ARMENIAN ISSUE IS RESOLVED]

[Gavur]

Bestseller in one week!

[Joseph]

Taner Akcam From:Radikal Date: Sun, 11 May 2003

About 1915 and Some Legends



On 29 April an article devoted to the "Armenian Question" was published, the title of which was "Are we ready to face our history?" The article spoke with a sincerity rarely shown in Turkey about the necessity of assessing history and turning the issue into an object of open discussion. Even this viewpoint alone deserves saluting the author of the article. But there were some glitches in the writing. In that article too many subjects, familiar as being the Turkish official thesis, were offered as information, which are such tall stories that they have no relation whatsoever with the truth. The reality is that a number of individuals, as well as bodies founded with the purpose of proving the Turkish viewpoint, continuously create tall stories and lies. Even people like Ayse Hur, who think very seriously about this issue, often accept those tall stories as reality, and by repeating them contribute to the fact that the tall story gets transformed, little by little, into "information reflecting the truth." About this subject, we need to clearly distinguish the tall stories and lies from the true information. I would now like to address two of those tall stories:

1) Ayse Hur writes "up to the Mondros Armistice, 1397 persons were given various sentences; more than half of them were sentenced to death for the crime of harming Armenians." This information, which is simply a tall story, appeared for the first time in the Kamuran Gürün's book "The Armenian File," as far as I know. Thereafter, it was continuously used by others, too, as credible information. Nobody thought about asking the following question: who were these 1397 persons who were put on trial and/or sentenced to death?

Gürün provides no name, nor any document, but mentions -- as a reference -- the files of the cypher room of the Ottoman period Interior Ministry. Those files were kept secret from researchers for a long time. Only civil servants like Gürün or S. Soy, who were given the responsibility of creating a "tall story," were able to read them, and when those files were opened, those who wanted to read them were either expelled from the archives, or permission to access them was not provided under the pretext that the files were still being worked on, or that their subject had no relation with those files. Today those files are open, and one can read them by overcoming certain difficulties.

And the information contained in those files is the exact opposite of what Gürün claims. There is no proof of the fact that a number of persons were put on trial or that they were executed for having mistreated Armenians. As for those sued, they were not people who committed crimes against Armenians, but rather those who appropriated the possession of Armenians. The Ittihadists launched an inquiry against certain civil servants who had plundered possessions, since they wanted to take advantage of those possessions for certain purposes.

THE PROGRAM OF ITTIHADISTS

A number of documents show that Ittihadists used Armenian possessions for the following purposes:

1) To cope with the costs of the war (certain buildings were assigned to the military; the output of factories were assigned to meet the needs of soldiers).
2) To create Turkish middle-classes.
3) To get Muslim immigrants to settle down (for this purpose to expropriate seized houses).
4) To sell Armenian possessions, so as to cope with the cost of the deportation of Armenians with the income resulting from the sales of the possessions.

In these files, there are tens of documents about this subject, but there isn't even a single document about those persons who were sued for the crime of mistreating Armenians. The documents show us that the Ittihadists used Armenian possessions in accordance with a very well prepared plan, for certain purposes, and for this reason they put the plunderers on trial.

Besides these trials there is also a second tall story: according to this tall story, compensations for their possessions were paid to the Armenians at the places where they had been sent. Various decisions were made at various times by the authorities about the abandoned possessions of Armenians. Among these, the most important ones were the circular dated 10 June 1915 and the temporary law adopted in September. According to these circulars, the possession of Armenians would be sold and the compensations would be paid to them in their new places. However, there is not a single document about this in the Ottoman Archives. Therefore, the allegation that those who mistreated Armenians were sued and sentenced to death is not correct, much like the allegation that compensations for the seized possessions of Armenians were paid to them is not correct. These are simply lies, intentionally created by a lie-machine, in order to confuse people.

2) Ayse Hur writes in her article that Protestants and Catholics living in Western provinces were not deported. In reality, there are two different tall stories about this issue. The first is that Armenians were not deported from Western provinces; whereas, the second is that Catholics and Protestants were not subjected to deportation. About this, there is no need for foreign sources, even the State Archives disprove the two above-mentioned tall stories in a book published in 1995. It is said in this book that Armenians were deported from Adana, Ankara, Aydin, Bolu, Bitlis, Bursa, Canik, Çanakkale, Diyarbakir, Edirne, Eskishehir, Erzurum, Izmit, Kastamonu, Kayseri, Karahisar, Konya, Kütahya, Elazig, Maras, Nigde, Samsun, Sivas, Trabzon, and Van. In reality, those are incomplete, too. But, even this shows the deportation was carried out on the whole territory of Anatolia. At the head of these tall stories is the one in which it is claimed that there was no deportation from Izmir and Istanbul; whereas, the records of the Interior Ministry indicate that there were deportations from Istanbul and Izmir, too. Let's hope that the existing documents will one day be published.

TALAAT PASHA'S TELEGRAM

Now as for that tall story, according to which Catholics and Protestants were not deported, it is true that there were a number of telegrams sent regarding this subject in order that the local responsible authorities could prevent such deportations. But the first message sent was already dated 4 August 1915. That is, it was sent 3 months after the deportations. The first document about Catholic Armenians was sent by Talaat Pasha. The telegram stated that the deportation of Catholic Armenians should not take place. A similar telegram was sent on 15 October about Protestant Armenians. There, too, the following was said: those Protestant Armenians who haven't been deported yet, shall not be deported anymore. As inferred from both telegrams, Armenian Catholic and Protestants had already been deported prior to that date. Now in telegrams sent on 18 September 1915 from Kayseri, Eskishehir, Diyarbakir, and Nigde, governors replied that all the Armenians in their respective regions had been deported and that none remained.

From many documents, we understand that those telegrams of Talaat Pasha were sent "merely for the sake of doing it". Later, verbal instructions were sent to the same governors so that they would not take those telegrams seriously. But even the above-mentioned documents alone are sufficient to show that the claim that Catholics and Protestants had not been deported is a tall story.

Let's hope that, this painful page of the history accepted in the international public opinion as the Armenian Genocide and that among us it is recalled only as the "Armenian Question", stop being for us a topic on the agenda only in the month of April, and that it shall be the object of a general serious discussion rid of legends, because he who doesn't face his own past, cannot build his future.


Taner Akcam


From:Radikal Date: Sun, 11 May 2003

Published in the Sunday supplement of the Turkish daily "Radikal".

[Joseph]

Turkish historian to study genocide

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/29/turkish_historian_to_study_genocide/?page=full

Turkish historian to study genocide

Armenians praise appointment at Clark
Taner Akçam will lecture on genocide issues.

Globe Staff / May 29, 2008
It's like appointing a non-Jewish German to teach Holocaust studies, but Clark University has already done that.

The Worcester school recently named a Turkish historian to be chairman of Armenian genocide studies.

Taner Akçam, who was imprisoned in Turkey in the 1970s for his work on the slaughter of Armenians at the end of the Ottoman period in Turkey, was selected over several candidates of Armenian descent to hold the Armenian genocide studies post and to become an associate professor in the history department.

Despite a century of friction between Turks and Armenians, Akçam's appointment has sparked little concern in the state's vocal Armenian community.

"My appointment is a sign of change, with symbolic meaning," said Akçam, who is leaving a post as a visiting professor of history at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

"It is not important, the ethnic origin of the individual in this position; what is important is the approach of the individual to the historic wrongdoing," Akçam said. "The position should not be an issue between Turks and Armenians; this is an issue between those who violated human rights and scholars and human beings who fight against abuses of human rights."

Some local Armenians lamented that Akçam does not support Armenian claims to Turkish land and that there are not enough positions in academia to be filled by more scholars of Armenian descent.

Armenians have long called for more scholarship on the massacre of more than 1 million Armenians during and after World War I in what is modern-day Turkey.

Armenians, as well as nations including France, Argentina, and Canada have recognized the killings as genocide. But the Turkish government rejects the label and has opposed efforts in Congress to pass a genocide resolution.

The issue has led some municipalities in Massachusetts to split from the Anti-Defamation League-sponsored No Place for Hate program, because the group has been hesitant to refine its stance on what many consider genocide.

Local Armenians said they support the appointment of Akçam, who after being released from a Turkish prison received a doctorate in Germany and has since written extensively on the Armenian genocide, including his most recent book, "A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility," published in 2006.

"It's not troubling that he's of Turkish descent; if anything it's encouraging," said Marc Mamigonian, director of programs at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research in Belmont.

"It's important that non-Armenians be involved in this sort of work," he said. ". . . It's hard to miss the symbolism of it. But my hope is that this is more than just symbolic and that he will continue to make important contributions to the scholarship."

Sharistan Melkonian, chairwoman of the Armenian National Committee of Massachusetts, said Akçam's willingness to go to prison for his views shows the wisdom of his appointment.

"In this case, you put ethnicity aside for people who speak the truth, and that's exactly what he has done," Melkonian said. "This is a scholar who has distinguished himself."

Local Turks, however, questioned Akçam's appointment, as well as the position, which they consider biased.

"Some Armenians may be very happy with his appointment, but how productive will he be in creating an academic platform to resolve these issues?" said Erkut Gomulu, president of the Turkish American Cultural Society of New England in Boston.

"Akçam seems a little bit biased, and I don't know how objective he will be," Gomulu said. "I would like to see more dialogue between Turks and Armenians, but I don't think the academician should be taking sides. He should be trying to find out what happened during that period. This seems more like a political appointment."

Deborah Dwork, director of the Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark, said Akçam was chosen from more than a dozen people who interviewed for the position. She said the appointment follows her department's naming of Thomas Kühne, a German Catholic professor of Holocaust studies.

"Ethnic or religious identity is not crucial to any appointment," she said. "We hire the best scholars in the pool."

Akçam will become an associate professor and teach four classes next semester at Clark, which has about 1,900 undergraduates and 650 graduate students.

He expects to face criticism.

"I assume that I will be the target of hate by Turkish nationalists - I'm sure about that," he said.

He said his goal is to find ways to prod both Armenians and Turks "to rectify the historic injustices."

"This is a position to educate students and the community about the human rights abuses in the past," he said.

David Abel can be reached at [email protected].

[Joseph]

News on Taner Akcam

Taner Akcam's new book is in the process of being translated. The working title in English is:

THE ETHNIC CLEANSING POLICY OF THE UNION AND PROGRESS PARTY
DURING THE WAR YEARS AS DOCUMENTED IN THE PRIME MINISTERIAL ARCHIVE

[Joseph]

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT WAS TO ERADICATE THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION FROM ANATOLIA AND OTTOMAN ARCHIVES SHOW THIS TO US: TANER AKCAM

Arminfo
2008-10-27 11:05:00

ArmInfoThe various archives on the Ottoman Empire contain information
that is supportive and complementary to one another and explain the
same historical phenomenon from different perspectives. The main
target of the Ottoman Government at the time was to eradicate the
Christian population from Anatolia and available Ottoman documents
from Ottoman archives show this to us, Taner Akcam, Turkish historian,
Professor of Clark University, told ArmInfo.

'I have recently published another book in Turkey and the title is
"The Armenian Issue is Resolved: Policies towards Armenians During
the War Years, Based on Ottoman Documents" The central thesis of
the book is that the available Ottoman governments documents in
the Ottoman Archive in Istanbul clearly show us that the Union and
Progress party developed and implemented plans during the World War
I which deliberately targeted the total destruction of the Armenian
people. By doing so, I refute the commonly accepted thesis by the
public and the academic world, that Ottoman archival materials in
Istanbul contradict the German, American, Austrian and other foreign
archival records and that their respective contents present different
information. As I showed in my book this perception is wrong and there
is in fact no contradiction between the materials found in the Ottoman
archives with that in Western archives. The various archives contain
information that is supportive and complementary to one another and
explain the same historical phenomenon from different perspectives. The
main target of the Ottoman Government at the time was to eradicate
the Christian population from Anatolia and available Ottoman documents
from Ottoman archives show this to us>, the Turkish historian said.

[Joseph]

1.

http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2008-11-28-armenia-diaspora-and-facing-history

Armenia, diaspora, and facing history

by Taner Akcam


This essay was originally published in Taraf as "Ermenistan, diaspora ve tarihle yüzle?mek" on Nov. 16, 2008 (http://www.taraf.com.tr/haber/21653.htm). The translation is by Fatma Sakarya with additional notes by the author.

Mr. Akcam is the author of A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility.

There is no doubt that Abdullah Gül's visit to Yerevan was an historical step, and we should applaud both the Turkish leader and Armenian president Serge Sargsian for having shown the courage to take it. It was a big move on their part, and it has cracked open the door to a new beginning in Turkish-Armenian relations. It looks like many people will be able to pass through that door.

It was only seven years ago, in February 2001, when my statement on a television program, that Turkey should apologize to Armenians, created a firestorm of sentiment against me. Now, after Abdullah Gül's visit, retired Ambassador Volkan Vural repeated the same words and stated, "We should apologize," and not a single objection was raised. The words seemed to have been greeted with general acceptance (Taraf, Oct. 18, 2008). As this example shows, with the passage of time, Turkey seems to have made a lot of progress on the subject.

The Ergenekon investigation and arrests play a special role in this progress. If the arrests had not been made, we would have witnessed a serious campaign for the hearts and minds of the public being waged against Abdullah Gül's visit. For the past few years in Turkey the campaigns against the Armenians and 1915 have been led by Ergenekon.[1] It was Ergenekon followers who organized the memorial anniversary for the execution of mayor of Bogazlayan Kemal,[2] the marches for Talat Pasha in Berlin,[3] and the "war of law" in Switzerland.[4] Again, it was they who mobilized the public against the conference we organized in Istanbul in 2005,[5] who dragged us into the courtrooms,[6] and who drove the campaign against Hrant Dink all the way to murder.

[Notes from the author:

1. Ergenekon is the name of a secret organization existing primarily within the military and civil bureaucracy. The organization, which includes retired generals, journalists, bureaucrats, educators, and businesspeople, has been under investigation for several years. In the end, a trial against 86 individuals, 46 of whom are being detained, was begun on October 20, 2008. The defendants have been accused of establishing a terrorist organization called "Ergenekon," and of plotting to effect regime change through a military coup by committing politically motivated crimes and terroristic acts. Although the murder of Hrant Dink does not figure in the charges of the indictment, there are some very strong clues that the organization was involved.

2. Kemal was the kaymakam (county executive) of Bogazl?yan county in the Yozgat district. He was prosecuted by a mlitary tribunal formed in Istanbul in 1919 for having massacred Armenians en masse, was sentenced to death, and executed on April 10, 1919.

3. The committee was formed in 2005 under the leadership of former Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Rauf Denkta?. A significant number of its board of directors are now under arrest and facing prosecution under the Ergenekon trial. In order to protest the claims of the Armenian Genocide, in Europe, the Committee organized the "Lausanne 2005," "Berlin 2006," "Lausanne 2007," and "Paris 2007" marches and activities.

4. Dogu Perinçek, one of the founders of the Talat Pasha Committee and now a detainee defendant in the Ergenekon trial, had initiated a "legal war" in Switzerland by declaring that "the Armenian genocide did not occur" to protest that country's crime of "denying the genocide." That trial concluded in March 2007 with Perinçek's conviction.

5. On September 23-25, 2005, Bogaziçi, Sabanc?, and Bilgi Universities had organized a conference titled "Ottoman Armenians during the Period of the Empire's Decline: Scholarly Responsibility and Problems of Democracy." The conference, originally planned for August, was initially suspended by court action and a serious campaign against the intelligentsia who had organized the conference, was waged, headed by some government offficials.

6. What is referred to here are the court actions initiated not only against Hrant Dink but also against other well-known journalists and writers, including Orhan Pamuk, Elif ?afak, Murat Belge, Hasan Cemal, and Ismet Berkan, based upon Article 301 and other articles of the Turkish Criminal Code.]

Ergenekon's use of such a painful episode in history, 1915, as a way to confer legitimacy upon itself in society, is extremely significant and meaningful. The connection between those who enforced a policy of annihilation against Armenians in the past and an organization like Ergenekon that organizes hostility against the Armenians today is a subject that deserves to be given a great deal of attention.
Misguided reason

In this short piece, I would like to take up some points that figure prominently in many of the writings that have purported to support Mr. Gül's visit, but which I nevertheless view as misguided. Many of these writings, written by our own enlightened thinkers, are nevertheless poorly conceived. Representing some of the first influential ideas to make it "through the newly opened door" they have the potential for influencing public opinion and for that reason it is imperative that they be critically examined now. Besides presenting a simple critique, I want to create a framework on the subject of how the matter should be approached in the near future. My hope is that I will succeed in laying a stronger foundation to undergird future discourse on the subject matter.

If we examine the general premise behind all of the writings issued thus far, we see that there are serious differences between the Armenian state and the Armenian diaspora, particularly on the issue of the perception of Turkey and the attitude that should be taken toward history. According to what's been written thus far, the Armenian state and the diaspora constitute practically polar opposites. The diaspora is defined as a singular, monolithic entity, and the word diaspora itself is given a negative connotation. The primary reason why the diaspora is "negative" and "bad" is the position it takes on "insisting on recognition of the Genocide." Therefore, in the hands of our intellectuals, the demand for "recognition of the Genocide" and "insistence" on it has become the bogeyman. According to their logic, the more the diaspora stays away from "demanding recognition of the Genocide" and/or refrains from insisting on it as much as possible, the better.

According to the articles being written, the Armenian state has not been very insistent on the subject of "recognition of the Genocide." As the last visit illustrated, our neighbor Armenia is very "good"; it reflected its "goodness" by refraining from use of the word "Genocide" and by not demanding "recognition" during the course of the visit. However, the Armenian state is seriously in the grip of and under the influence of the "bad" diaspora. According to these writers, in order to relieve Turkish-Armenian tension, "our good neighbor Armenia" must be saved from the "bad" diaspora.

The biggest reason why Armenia has fallen under the influence of the "bad" diaspora, so their reasoning goes, is because of poorly conceived Turkish policies. As a result, in order to save Armenia from the diaspora, Turkey must relinquish its bad policies and foster "good" relations with Armenia. Consequently, Armenia will be able to distance itself from the bad policies of the diaspora, policies like "insisting on recognition of genocide." In other words, the key to resolving the matter is in the "genocide-demanding bogeyman." In order to resolve the issue, this demand must disappear.

The intellectuals in our country who share these views describe Turkish-Armenian relations after 1991 in this way. The first president of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrossian, was soft on the issue of the genocide. He didn't "insist" on its recognition and supported more open policies toward Turkey. For this reason, he had positioned himself against the "bad" diaspora. The reason why Mr. Ter-Petrossian fell from power was that Turkey hadn't supported him. In conclusion, Mr. Ter-Petrossian's loss occurred on an axis between "those who demanded recognition of the Genocide, and those who did not," and the "bad" policies we followed cost him his administration.

I believe that we need to evaluate this viewpoint and repair it. If you sincerely want to resolve this issue, it is imperative that you possess information about each side that resembles the truth. Just to give one example, Mr. Ter-Petrossian's fall from power had little to do with Turkey's policies or its position regarding the issue of genocide. The main reasons for his loss had to do with deteriorating economic conditions (especially irregularities in administration) and his insistence on moving toward a quick resolution of the Karabakh matter.

What is even more important than this is that after Mr. Ter-Petrossian, the policy of the Armenian state towards Turkey has not actually changed. It has in essence stayed virtually the same. The team of Robert Kocharian, both in personnel and in policy, has continued the same political line of the Ter-Petrossian period. The best example of consistency in personnel is Vartan Oskanian, the minister of foreign affairs from the Kocharian period. From the mid-1990s of the Ter-Petrossian administration, Mr. Oskanian performed a very important role in foreign relations and even took on the position of [deputy] minister of foreign affairs in the final years.

The essence of the policies followed by all of the administrations in Armenia following 1991 can be summarized thus: "establishment of diplomatic relations without preconditions." One should not forget that Armenian president Serge Sargsian, the person who invited Mr. Gül in the first place, was Mr. Kocharian's candidate and won the election in opposition to Mr. Ter-Petrossian. This consistency in policy can be deduced from the fact that Mr. Gül's invitation came from a member of the Kocharian team. In contrast, Mr. Ter-Petrossian did not openly support the invitation; in fact, he took a very critical view of it, stating that it was "premature." (The fact that he's part of the political opposition no doubt played a big role in this.)

The point I am trying to make is that possessing information and knowledge about Armenian political developments and about the opposing sides that is accurate, is crucial to moving away from the wrong kinds of presumptions that have been voiced in Turkey. If you represent one side of a problem and you are seeking a solution to that problem, you need to possess at least as much information about your opponent as you possess about yourself. If you do not have a detailed picture of the other side, you will never be able to negotiate a solution.
"Bad" diaspora and "demanding" Genocide recognition

There is another reason that the division between "bad diaspora" and "good neighbor Armenia" needs to be examined more closely.