Taner Akçam Teaches `Genocide 101′ in Germany
ARTS | DECEMBER 3, 2013 5:51 PM
________________________________
By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach
Special to the Mirror-Spectator
BERLIN ‘ Two classes of high school students in northern Germany had
the rare opportunity to learn about the Armenian genocide from one of
the most authoritative researchers on the topic, Prof. Taner Akçam
from Clark University in Worcester, Mass.
During his brief visit to Germany over the Thanksgiving holidays
November 26-29, Akçam also lectured for adults, among them a seminar
group at the Free University in Berlin, and a broader general public
at the Potsdam University and the Lepsiushaus in Potsdam. For Akçam it
was not foreign territory. As the dean of the philosophy department of
the Potsdam University noted in introducing him, Akçam had found
political asylum in Germany after his escape from prison in Turkey,
where he had been sentenced for articles he had written about the
Kurds. In 1996 he took a degree from the Hannover University with a
thesis on the Armenian Genocide and then worked at the Hamburg
Institute for Social Research, before moving the US, where he studied
at the University of Minnesota and Michigan, and went on to a position
at Clark University.
In his public appearances, Akçam spoke on themes he has developed in
several books. In his two university lectures in Berlin and Potsdam,
he dealt with `The Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Documents: A Gradual
Radicalization in the Decision-Making Process’ and spoke at the
Lepsiushaus on `Genocide as a Political Security Concept.’ The first
lectures drew on material published in his most recent book, The Young
Turks’ Crime Against Humanity. The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic
Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, which received the Albert Hourani
Award for the best book of the year.
Opening the Ottoman Archives
Akçam addressed two basic questions: what happened? And, why did it happen?
Although the fact of the Armenian Genocide has been firmly established
(though more can be documented through local histories), the why and
how are still subjects of discussion. Rejecting the notion that it was
the expression of some `ahistorical, genocidal, barbaric Turks’ or
simply a pan-Turkic, pan-Turanist expansionism, or war-time
exigencies, the researcher presented the developments as documented in
Ottoman archives. Those of the Interior Ministry General Directorate
of Security and the Cipher Office, for example, established in 1913,
contain encoded messages from the center to the regions, with orders
for deportations that show the intent to commit genocide. The
strategic reasons behind the decision-making process he identified in
the Ottoman government’s fear that Russian-backed reform moves would
lead to an independent Armenia, thus the circulars issued by Interior
Minister Talaat Pasha in September-October 1914 ordering that
Armenians be disarmed. The dates are important, because these orders,
as well as those for deportations of women and children, are before
the entry into war in November. Then, following the catastrophic
Ottoman losses at Sankamis in January 1915, and later Russian
advances, the decision to commit genocide took shape. As a leitmotif
in his lecture, he noted how moves towards reforms for the Armenians,
supported by foreign powers, were answered with massacres, in the
Hamidian period as later.
Those listening to Akçam’s presentation were struck by the quality of
his source material and asked about access to these archives. The
Ottoman Empire archives are now open and are even catalogued, whereas
the military archives in Ankara are closed. The Committee of Unity and
Progress Central Committee documents and those relating to the Special
Operations, however, are gone. He estimated that what is available may
represent perhaps 30 per cent of the actual documents.
Behind the Policy of Denial
Speaking in German to a capacity crowd at the Lepsiushaus Akçam
explored the reasons why the Turkish establishment has embraced a
policy of denial regarding historical facts that have been so
scrupulously documented. He began by noting that among the documents
found in 2009 pertaining to the Ergenokon case, his name was on a hit
list, along with those of Orhan Pamuk and Hrant Dink, who were all
designated as `traitors to national security.’ The argument was (and
is) that anyone who raises the accusation of genocide is threatening
national security, because of the threat to change borders and destroy
the state. Echoes of similar thinking are found in the reluctance on
the part of US presidents (with the exception of Reagan) to utter the
G-word, who claim they must protect national security interests in the
Middle East and not jeopardize them for a moral issue related to the
past. Others argue that recognition is the only moral choice. For
Akçam the solution lies in the idea that asserting moral issues is
necessary precisely to safeguard national security, and that refusal
to acknowledge the past is the source of regional insecurity. Here, in
reviewing the history, Akçam showed how the willingness or refusal of
Turkish leaders (including Kemal Atatürk) to acknowledge the
atrocities and even agree to punishing perpetrators, was directly
related to their perception of how the foreign powers would treat
Turkey. Atatürk uttered his famous phrase about `a shameful act’ in
expectation of guarantees of national sovereignty and territorial
concessions. Since the continuing Armenian-Turkish conflict is seen in
relation to territorial issues, the speaker urged a revision of the
concept of `national security.’ By the same token, due to the denial
of historic facts, many ethnic and religious groups continue to view
the world from the perspective of the past and the region, thus
traumatized, remains insecure. If the refusal to face the past
generates insecurity, then recognition leads to trust, he said. In the
lively Q&A session, the critical issue of Turkey’s national identity
arose. The speaker summarized the dilemma faced in Turkey, due to the
fact that it is difficult to identify the founding fathers as `thieves
and murderers.’ For such to occur, he stressed the need for a new
ruling elite to emerge in Turkey, one with a democratic identity and
in this context underlined the importance of Turkey’s bid for European
Union membership. He also urged Armenian Diaspora groups to seek
contact and collaboration with democratic grass roots movements in
Turkey who are critically assessing the past.
`Armenian Genocide 101′
The highpoint of Akçam’s visit was undoubtedly his session with German
students, in which I also participated. They came from two prestigious
Gymnasien, high-school level institutions for study of the humanities
and natural sciences. Students in German schools receive instruction
in Holocaust studies but, with the exception of one federal state,
they do not learn about the Armenian Genocide in their history
classes. These two classes had prepared for their special workshop by
reading background material and discussing it with their teachers. The
visiting professor decided to treat them to an introductory course,
`Armenian Genocide 101.’ With the aid of a huge map of Ottoman Turkey,
which showed the deportation routes and concentration camps, he
summarized the phases of the genocide, from the `re-settlement’ to the
extermination. He placed special emphasis on the mathematical
precision with which the operation was organized and executed,
explaining how Armenians would be deported, and could not make up more
than 5-10 percent, and how Anatolia, with its massive Armenian
population, was to be emptied, also in light of the Russia factor.
Referring to documents from the Office of Statistics, he cited the
figure of 180,000 Armenians to be left. When, after the removal of 1.3
million, it appeared that a half million still survived, they were
subjected to killing in the second phase, to reach the desired number.
Throughout the discussion, comparisons to the Holocaust were made ‘
from the Nazis’ `Eastern Plan’ to their pursuit of `Lebensraum’ for a
purely German (or `Aryan’) population. Here he noted that in the
Armenian case one difference concerned religion. Those who converted
to Islam could save their lives (until he number became too large),
whereas in the Holocaust this was not the case. Regarding the
perspectives for Genocide recognition, both Rolf Hosfeld, scientific
director of the Lepsiushaus, and Akçam pointed out the importance of
the military-strategic context. Had Nazi Germany won the war, and a
Nazi-successor elite established post-war Germany, the attitude
towards the Holocaust would have been different. But Germany was
occupied, the Nuremburg trials took place. Similarly, in Turkey after
it lost the war and was under occupation, trials against the CUP
leaders responsible for the massacres took place. However, following
Atatürk’s later military victories, the scene changed. Thus, the need
for a new generation in Turkey to assume leadership and responsibility
for facing the past and establishing justice. He noted several
encouraging steps in this direction on the part of the current
government, which broke the continuity of the elites when it assumed
power over a decade ago; for example, Prime Minister Erdogan’s apology
for the Dersim massacres of Kurds.
The students listened in fascination to his brief account of his own
life in Turkey. As a student leader he had written about the Kurds and
paid for it with a 9-year prison sentence. After one year, he managed
with co-prisoners to break out of prison and flee to Germany, where he
was again arrested, because he carried a false passport, and held
until Amnesty International succeeded in freeing him. It was while
working with a social research center in Hamburg on a project about
`universalizing Nuremburg’ that he first started reading about the
Armenians. In Turkey, he had had no idea of what had happened. That
was the beginning of his work as the leading Turkish researcher of the
genocide. Following up on this biographical profile, I sketched out my
family background, to give an example of how individual Armenians ‘ my
parents ‘ experienced the genocide and survived. With the aid of
pictures of former Armenian villages in eastern Anatolia, I showed how
the denial policy has involved attempts to eradicate traces of the
culture and civilization of the Armenians on the soil of current-day
Turkey.
National Identity or Nationalism?
In a final session, a former school director Ulrich Rosenau moderated
discussion, drawing the lessons of the Genocide for the present. Here
students shared their views of racism, as they have experienced it
against non-ethnic German immigrants, for example, and also in the
wider European Union context, with reference to rightwing extremist
movements in some eastern European countries. They asked what the role
of the Turkish population had been during the Genocide and heard how
the governing CUP leaders in Ottoman mobilized their base with
religious propaganda against the `infidels,’ while providing economic
incentives to plunder the Armenians. As in the Holocaust, it was
crucial to dehumanize the targeted victim population, identifying them
as foreign, alien, tumors to be removed. He provided interesting
insights from his own experience as a Turk in Germany, where he did
experience discrimination, and in America, where he has not. This
prompted reflection on the nature of national identities: is the
identity of a nation its ethnicity? Or are citizens in the US, for
instance, first Americans, and then Armenians, Italians, Hispanics,
etc.? He also remarked that in the case of the US, it has been
possible to face the implications of slavery and the fate of Native
Americans, without eradicating the positive contributions of the
founding fathers.
– See more at:
http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2013/12/03/taner-akcam-teaches-genocide-101-in-germany/#sthash.wpTDmNBj.dpuf