THE DEFINITION OF JUSTICE FOR THE ARMENIANS IN TURKEY
by Garen Kazanc
Published: Friday July 19, 2013
An April 24 commemoration in Turkey. Erhan Arik / Photolure
Many Armenians around the world think in unison when it comes to
their demands and goals in regard to the Armenian Genocide. It is
often understood that recognition and reparations of the genocide
have been the motto of many Armenian organizations throughout the
world who have sought justice. This has provided the international
community a suitable understanding of what justice means in regards
to the Armenian Genocide and what it may entail.
However, as we will soon discover, justice for one community may not
been the same for another. The diaspora has become an ever-changing
entity with a mixture of different opinions and ideas regarding
this issue.
New to the mix is the Armenian community of Turkey. This community,
which has been historically isolated from not only the diaspora but
the Republic of Armenia as well, has recently offered its own take over
what the definition of justice should be. Many diasporans may not know
however, that this definition is a far cry from their conventional
understanding of justice. This gap of knowledge is critical, and,
over time, it will inevitably cause a very big disappointment for
the diaspora and the recognition of the Armenian Genocide at large.
In the past decade, Turkey has made some significant reforms when it
comes to free speech and basic democratic rights. The Armenian Genocide
has since been an open topic of discussion and Armenian newspapers have
openly used the term ‘Genocide’ to describe the events that occurred
in 1915. People are not being penalized under Article 301 anymore,
and commemorations at the Taksim square that take place every year
on April 24 have become an annual routine.
As a culmination of this, the Armenian discourse in Turkey has
become increasingly assertive and demanding; often times, this has
lead to discussions about justice and reparations and whether or not
the community agrees with the diasporan notions of recognition. The
Armenian leaders in Turkey have made it very clear that they confute
the diaspora’s model of justice and that their community should not
be considered a diaspora by all means.
The Armenian community of Turkey continues to live on the lands their
forefathers have been living in for thousands of years. Many in the
community today sees their lives in Turkey as a continuation of this
heritage, while the diaspora sees their own lives on Turkish soil as
a remnant of a tumultuous past.
Understandably enough, the Armenian community in Turkey already has
what the diaspora wants: reparations. This means that the community
is able to live on the lands of their ancestors and reap any sort
of benefit from it. This contrasts the situation of the Armenian
communities outside of Turkey and Armenia. Though not entirely their
fault, the communities in the diaspora have long been outside of
their historical homelands and have subsequently forgotten what it
means to live on them. The underlining demands the diaspora has placed
forth are intended to reconnect with all that has been forgotten and
receive a certain compensation for the pain and suffering that went
along with it.
However, the diaspora’s push for this agenda has made the Turkish
Armenians reluctant to join the broader scope of Armenian genocide
recognition. Nevertheless, the diaspora is inclined to believe that
this fermentation of genocide discourse in Turkey will ultimately
yield the results they aspire.
So what do the leaders of the Armenian community in Turkey actually
want?
Let us begin with the late Hrant Dink, who considered Turkey, rather
than Armenia, his sacred homeland. Dink notoriously believed that
issues concerning the Genocide would be solved through internal rather
than external pressure. However, contrary to popular belief, Dink
never believed in Genocide recognition and has never made a statement
alluding towards anything of that nature. He was especially critical of
the strategy deployed by the Armenian diaspora of pressuring Western
governments into its recognition.
Furthermore, when asked during a conference held in Burbank shortly
before his death about reinstating the Treaty of Sevres, Dink responded
whimsically by saying that he already lives on those territories
anyways. He often celebrated the notion of Armenians remaining in
Turkey by stating, “Yes we’re Armenians, we do want this land, but
not to take it away, just to be buried deep inside.”
Dink, being the optimist he was, saw reparations as a process of
rebuilding. He believed rebuilding not only came in the form of
renovating churches and schools, but renovating the damaged ties
between the two communities due to history and politics.
This model of thinking has been reasserted by writer and etymologist
Sevan Nisanyan, who picked up where Dink left off. Nisanyan was the
only Turkish Armenian that spoke during one of the most important
conferences regarding reparations and justice pertaining to the
Armenian Genocide. The conference, which is considered the first
of its kind in Turkey, has been extremely important for Turkish and
Armenian scholars alike in determining the exact nature of reparations
and what its assessment necessitates.
Nisanyan was quick to object to any sort of reparations, and any sort
of talk appeared to disgruntle him. Nisanyan considered reparations as
a dead-end, and noted that such an approach is unjust, unacceptable,
and would open the door for further conflict between Armenians
and Turks. Additionaly, Nisanyan stated that it is useless for a
tax-paying citizen of Turkey such as himself. He concluded by saying
that reparations should be more of a moral or symbolic gesture rather
than financial reimbursement. He argued that sponsoring a unilateral
approach favoring solely the Armenian community would be damaging to
Turkish-Armenian relations at large.
Other leading Genocide historians such Taner Akcam have also objected
to such demands of reparations. Akcam, a leading Turkish scholar on
the Armenian Genocide, believes that the losses during the genocide
can never be fully reprimanded. In a 2013 speech held in Toronto, he
categorically ruled out full reparations for the genocide. However,
Akcam did outline various procedures the Turkish government may
utilize in order to compensate the loss for the genocide.
“There are several ways to compensate,” he said. “Turkey, for example,
can open the port of Trabzon for Armenian exports and imports without
any taxation.” Ultimately, Akcam believes that reparations should not
come in the form of land grants, but in making the current boundaries
“meaningless”. Additionally, in a recent interview with the Zaman
newspaper, Akcam asserted that reparations may come in the form of
granting Turkish citizenship to Armenians who have roots in Anatolia
and restoring some of the churches.
It is very difficult for the Armenian diaspora to work jointly with
these movements that may or may not favor recognition, but more
importantly, categorically oppose reparations. The diaspora is now
developing an illusive understanding of recognition movements in Turkey
and the repercussions of this can be disappointing to say the least.
To better understand the needs and desires of those in Turkey is to
better understand where the movement is heading in its entirety. As
time goes by, the Armenian Genocide is being approached in a more
pluralistic interpretation. The unilateral approach of recognition,
reparations, and restitution is now diversifying into many different
branches which more often than not have become antagonistic. But,
regardless of the different viewpoints and conceptualizations, one
thing remains certain: “Justice,” as Dink famously wrote, “will be
the water that will find its crack for us all.”
http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2013-07-19-the-definition-of-justice-for-the-armenians-in-turkey