The Turkey-Armenia Agreement Is a Farce
New America Media, Commentary, Hayg Oshagan, Posted: Oct 27, 2009
There is, in essence, one issue that defines the Armenians’ anger toward the agreement signed by the Turkish and Armenian governments and currently awaiting ratification by both nations’ parliaments. It is the matter of Genocide.
This issue has hung over Turkey like a blight, a moral disease that has infected the state, forcing its logic of revisionism and denial upon an entire nation. Penal codes, persecutions, millions for lobbying and even assassination have been the unfortunate result, burdening a struggling secularism and democracy with the specter of state terror.
Of course, there is reason to worry. Admitting to Genocide is not only a historical issue, laying questions of failure and shame at the heart of a nation’s identity. There are also material and other costs involved. Punishment and retribution for a crime can take many forms, from prosecution of the historical legacy of those responsible, to apologies, to monetary compensation, to the return of land to victims. There are certainly many examples of reparation by states over the past few years for victimizing their citizenry.
The cost is also high for the survivors. Most Armenians living outside Armenia have a direct family connection to the Genocide, and would simply not be living dispersed across the globe today were it not for the Genocide. Whereas more than 2 million Armenians lived in Turkey before 1915, mostly in Eastern Turkey, today that number is less than 100,000. Are there claims to land, are there deeds of property, are there receipts of bank accounts, are there reams of official testimony of forced marches and of vast killing fields? Of course there are. And there are also painful memories of human loss, of atrocities and of an unimaginable crime denied. The Armenian Diaspora has not forgotten its bloody genesis and has been vocal for recognition and restitution.
Since the re-establishment of the Republic of Armenia, Turkey has made every effort to address the issue of the Genocide with the Armenian state. Two issues have been at the center of Turkey’s effort. The first has been to find a way to dismiss the Genocide as an issue on the agenda of relevant international bodies (e.g. the U.S. Congress, or the International Criminal Court), where it might lead to determinations of guilt and possible punishment for Turkey. The second is to limit potential compensation, at least in terms of any return of land.
But how to do this?
What if Turkey were to close the border with Armenia in 1993, subject Armenia to economic hardship for more than a decade, and then, as a condition to reopen the border, require that Armenia accept Turkish demands regarding the Genocide? And what if, just in case of last-minute reluctance, it made sure that the Americans, the French and the Russians were there to pressure the process? That is the farce that these protocols are. This is what Turkey wanted and that was the scene in Zurich, where a grim-faced Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian signed these agreements beside a jubilant Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, surrounded by a phalanx of enforcers: Hillary Clinton, Bernard Kouchner and Sergei Lavrov.
The Diaspora rightly saw these protocols as capitulation. Here’s why.
Firstly, why should Turkey make any demands for reopening its border with Armenia? The two nations are not at war, and just as Turkey unilaterally closed the border, it should simply reopen it to its neighbor.
Secondly, why place a condition in the protocols to establish a commission between the two nations to study the Genocide? There have been hundreds of studies already on the historical events of the Genocide, and the matter is largely settled by historians, despite unrepentant Turkish denialist efforts. So what is the purpose of a commission to study what has already been determined? This is simply a means to relieve pressure on various governments (e.g. the U.S. Congress) or bodies (e.g. the European Union) to make determinations of Turkish guilt and possible reparation for the Genocide. As long as Armenia and Turkey are engaged in official dialogue on the Genocide, any international action regarding the Genocide will be indefinitely postponed.
Thirdly, why force Armenia, as part of signing the protocols, to recognize the current border with Turkey as final? This matter refers to potential territorial reparations. By signing these protocols, Armenia is seen to be signing away any future claims to lands that for more than 2,500 years have been inhabited by Armenians. These Eastern Turkish provinces are now, of course, empty of Armenians as a result of the Genocide, but the claim to land reparation and a new border are current issues. There are more than 200 border disputes across the globe between countries that have, nevertheless, open borders. The only reason for this precondition in the protocols is to limit potential future land compensation to Armenia.
There is good reason why most Armenians, not just those in the Diaspora, are up in arms about these protocols. Protests in Yerevan (50,000+), Los Angeles, New York, Montreal, Paris, Beirut, Athens and elsewhere are testament to the outrage. These protocols are an example of how skilled diplomacy and geopolitical interests allow one to commit a crime and then get away with it. In a world where we want to see justice, we cannot allow geopolitical interests and expediency to reprieve crimes. And when the sin is against humanity, as in the case of the Armenian Genocide, the responsibility is on all of us, not just Armenians, to demand justice.
Hayg Oshagan, an Armenian, is director of Media Arts and Studies and professor in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is also director of New Michigan Media.
Related Articles:
Reducing Historical Baggage Between Turkey and Armenia
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Dave on Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:56 said:
Turks cleansed not only indigenous Armenians from what is now called "eastern Turkey" but also cleansed Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. I don't want to make this into a religious issue but Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians were not only indigenous people who lived on those lands long before Turks arrived but also were Christians. The Turks also "cleansed" many Kurds, who are Muslim. The Turks committed horrible massacres against Kurds too, such as the Dersim massacres. In virtually all cases, the Turks claim that the victim group first "rebelled." Turkey's political culture is so warped that it thinks that if a group rebels (and if there were rebellions in some instances it was only due to prior repression) then it deserves to be wiped out. Turkey does not even realize how that sort of thinking makes it look to other people.
Finally, let us state a simple historical fact: Turkey started WW I in the eastern theater and voluntarily allied itself with Germany. Turkey struck first. I say this because Turkey is continually and dishonestly trying to depict itself as the victim in the war, "invaded" by outsiders. The truth is the exact opposite.
As for the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 which provided for Armenian and Kurdish territory in what is now termed "eastern Turkey": the Turks were fairly provided for in that treaty with huge amounts of land in central Asia Minor. I say these things because Turks are always trying to depict themselves as the victims of that Treaty. All things considered, is it any surprise that large majorities in the EU countries don't want Turkey to ever be a member?
Dave on Oct 29, 2009 at 06:41:05 said:
Turks cleansed not only indigenous Armenians from what is now called "eastern Turkey" but also cleansed Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. I don't want to make this into a religious issue but Armenians, Pontic Greeks, and Assyrians were not only indigenous people who lived on those lands long before Turks arrived but also were Christians. The Turks also "cleansed" many Kurds, who are Muslim. The Turks committed horrible massacres against Kurds too, such as the Dersim massacres. In virtually all cases, the Turks claim that the victim group first "rebelled." Turkey's political culture is so warped that it thinks that if a group rebels (and if there were rebellions in some instances it was only due to prior repression) then it deserves to be wiped out. Turkey does not even realize how that sort of thinking makes it look to other people.
Finally, let us state a simple historical fact: Turkey started WW I in the eastern theater and voluntarily allied itself with Germany. Turkey struck first. I say this because Turkey is continually and dishonestly trying to depict itself as the victim in the war, "invaded" by outsiders. The truth is the exact opposite.
As for the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 which provided for Armenian and Kurdish territory in what is now termed "eastern Turkey": the Turks were fairly provided for in that treaty with huge amounts of land in central Asia Minor. I say these things because Turks are always trying to depict themselves as the victims of that Treaty. All things considered, is it any surprise that large majorities in the EU countries don't want Turkey to ever be a member?
Jake Threefeathers on Oct 28, 2009 at 15:22:26 said:
It takes chutzpah the size of the nose of pre-surgery Cher Sarkissian and the size of the derriere of post-surgery Kim Kardashian, for these Armenians to demand land and money from Turkey - even as these pushy and arrogant Armenians sit on the stolen lands of my genocided people, the Native Americans.
It boggles the mind that as these slicks are demanding "2500 year-old Armenian lands" from Turkey, they do not explain by what right they have usurped 30,000 year-old lands of the American Indians in places like Glendale, Fresno and Watertown. Go figure!
So how about it you "eternally victimized" Armenians? When do you plan to pay reparations, pack up and get off my land? And as you are leaving, don't forget to pony up that 40 acres and a mule which were promised to the freed African slaves. After you give me my land back, you can also advise your Armenian brethren in France that they owe an apology and reparations for their participation in France's genocide of the Algerian people from 1954 to 1962.Some of the victims of the French Armenian savagery are still alive today, albeit maimed and disfigured from torture.
Last but not least, how about an apology and reparations for the actions of the notorious Nazi Armenian Brigade during WWII? This Armenian Brigade was tasked by the German Nazis to hunt down and exterminate Jews in German-occupied lands. These Armenians performed their assigned task with efficiency so as to make their Nazi bosses proud.
judge learned hand on Oct 27, 2009 at 22:35:48 said:
Incredible, and to the discredit of the Turkish delialists, having denialists attempt to refute the genocide it turning out, more and more, to be a compliment. The brain washed Turks are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for themselves by ridiculous and unfounded denial. Hello, the world knows the truth. Why do you think you aren\\\'t transacting in Euros? Hey, that is kinda funny. The most amazing thing is that denialists don\\\'t seem to fear the punishment of God, and they don\\\'t think about how grandpappy is frying in hell right now. Put it to you Turks this way: God can\\\'t be brainwashed. You won\\\'t smooth-talk God into revisionism.
lenar on Oct 27, 2009 at 17:54:25 said:
To Turkish commenter called Alp,
Your denialist and revisionist version of history that was taught to you at school is devoid of any historical facts. Do you really think that a nation who is capable of erasing a nation from their ancestral homeland had done so by relocating them!!?The one and half million Armenians were massacred, that is different than dying during combat but your revisionist mind would like to believe it's the same as in combat. The Genocide scholars have sent your government multiple letters in regards to the Armenian Genocide. Please check them in your free time. Murdering, kidnapping women and children during their death marches is by no means considered relocation. Even the Arab MUSLIMS of Syria and Lebanon have witnessed your utmost barbarism. You will be haunted by the crime of your ancestors as long as you continue your denial process. I suggest you spend your time getting yorself educated. Start first by reading the books of Good Turkish people suck as Pamuk and Akcam and then post your empty denials posts.
Leon
alp on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:13:28 said:
Sir,
Your hatred against us, Turks, so strong that you conveniently ignore how "your" Armenian ancestors started killing their Muslim (not only Turkish, but Muslim) neigbours with cold blood. You ignore that there was a state (Ottoman Empire) which tried to defend its territorial integrity where the methods employed "definitely" caused catastrophy and suffering of the Armenian people; however these methods by no means uncommon wartime practices and surely Turks were not the only ones "displacing" communities within their own border (I would like to remind you that current state Syria and Lebanon were Ottoman lands in 1915).
These people sided with the enemy and eventually suffered the consesquences of their actions AND you shamelessly ask for "compensation"? for WHAT? and from WHOM?
I would like to remind you that Turkey is NOT Ottoman Empire.. I really wonder from who you are sueing and what is your legal standing?
STOP your efforts to dynamite the efforts between two neighbours with your ancestral hatred. There were enough blood and tear in the past, no need to create a new drama..
My name is Alp, I am Turkish and a grand-grandson of Erzurum refugees of 1915 whose relatives were killed by Armenian/Russion troops.
leoaryatsi on Oct 27, 2009 at 07:19:56 said:
why say "Hayg Oshagan, an Armenian.."? at the end.
Dave on Oct 27, 2009 at 07:07:20 said:
The author of a comment on this page asks, "Will NAM editors publish an article memorializing the Holocaust, written by an American (say Alan Dershowitz) and then as a counterpoint, provide a link on its site to another article written by an Iranian citizen (say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) that denies the Holocaust?"
The answer is, of course, NO, because while it is a big no-no to question the Holocaust in any way, it is perfectly OK to question the Armenian genocide. And that's in spite of the fact that 20 nations, the EU Parliament, and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have all officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. And so has the US in a World Court/ICJ filing in 1951.
Go to Armenian-genocide DOT org and click on "International Affirmation" to see complete documentation on the genocide.
Please also visit NoPlaceForDenial DOT com, which describes how the Anti-Defamation League works with Turkey to deny the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, go here ( //npfdinfo.blogspot.com/2007/10/press-kit-history-of-opposing.html ) to see documentation on how Israel and groups such as the ADL and the American Jewish Committee have long colluded with Turkey to deny the Armenian Genocide.
Thus, it is not only OK, it seems, to deny the Armenian Genocide, but some - some - of the people who talk most loudly and vehemently about the Holocaust, are precisely the ones who wish to deny or diminish the Armenian Genodide. Chutzpah?
Lucine Kasbarian on Oct 27, 2009 at 06:30:50 said:
New America Media (NAM) is a US media effort that republishes articles that have appeared in the US ethnic press. So why, at the end of the following article by American citizen and communications professor Hayg Oshagan, does NAM provide a link to an article available on the NAM site that is written by a Turkish national and taken from Today's Zaman, a newspaper published in Turkey? In that essay, the Turkish-based writer, Dogu Ergil, sings a familiar tune: blames the descendants of the Genocide victims living in the Diaspora as a the source of the troubles between Turkey and Armenia, claims that the Diaspora is far removed from the problems in the Caucasus region and hence have no rights to weigh in on these issues, and claims that the Diaspora has now been "neutralized" from causing harm to Turkey with the arrival of the Protocols. Does Ergil and do NAM editors really think that by republishing this denialist essay in NAM, that NAM can erroneously claim that doing so is an effort to "fairly present two sides of an issue?"
-->Whereas speakers and writers in Turkey who exercise free speech by "weighing in" on the Genocide issue face punishment, imprisonment and even assassination, by publishing Ergil's piece, NAM editors have imported from Turkey its long-held denialist narrative on an American audience. What's next? Will NAM editors publish an article memorializing the Holocaust, written by an American (say Alan Dershowitz) and then as a counterpoint, provide a link on its site to another article written by an Iranian citizen (say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) that denies the Holocaust? NAM, you have already done it by publishing Ergil’s essay. If we really wish to afford everyone the right to free speech, I challenge NAM to follow through on the Dershowitz/Ahmadinejad scenario above, and to arrange for Hayg Oshagan’s article to appear in media outlets in Turkey!