ARMENIANS’ EXCESSIVE AGGRESSION SOMEHOW CREATED A CONSCIOUSNESS OF ARMENIAN ISSUE IN TURKEY
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Sept 21 2009
Interview with Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sedat Laciner, Director of the
Ankara-based Turkish think tank USAK (International Strategic Research
Organization)
Question (Q): Armenian Diaspora has been trying to impose their
allegations on genocide to Turkey for decades. Do you think Diaspora
will succeed in their cause?
SL: "First, I think Armenian Diaspora is trying to take revenge from
Turkey more than imposing anything on it. Second, they protect their
Armenian identity via keeping the sorrows and hostilities of the past
alive. To analyze the first one, the sincerity of the Armenian Diaspora
is questionable in claiming their cause. Modestly speaking, I do not
personally believe that Armenian Diaspora aims to impose something on
Turkey. If their aim was to pressure Turkey to accept their allegations
on 1915 events, they could have achieved this until now.
I am not sure if Turkish people or the State would use the word
"genocide’ to describe the 1915 events, however, they would have
accepted the misdeeds conducted in these events. When you talk to
ultra-nationalist Armenians, they say that Turkey’s denial of its
misdeeds in 1915 events is what frustrates them most. According to
this ultra-nationalist approach, Turkey’s denial of the allegations
is a worse crime than its causing the death of many Armenians and
sorrow of them.
To understand the trauma caused by the sorrow of Armenians and
Turks’ ignorance of the issue should not be that hard. Healing the
trauma caused by 1915 events is only possible through communicating
with Turkish people. Yet, the Armenian side seems like trying to
keep the wounds open and intensify the trauma instead of easing
the wounds. I am not sure if this stance is intentional or it is
a reflexive one. However, it is certain that nationalist Armenian
Diaspora neither tries to persuade Turkey to see its "wrongs’, nor
it tries to heal the wounds of Armenian nationalism and identity."
Q: What are the problematic aspects of Diaspora’s Turkey approach?
SL: "First of all, the Diaspora is trying to persuade Turkey without
communicating it. Moreover, Diaspora only targets Turkey. When you
just bother one without communication, it is meaningless to wait for
mutual understanding. Aggression is commonly followed by the defense
and counter-aggression of the targeted one. As long as Armenians
keep bothering Turkey like this, Turks will try to defend themselves,
and even prepare themselves for a counter-act. Armenians’ excessive
aggression towards Turkish State and Turks has somehow created a
consciousness of Armenian Issue among Turkish people in Turkey and
overseas which did not exist before. Armenians like to make Turks
living especially in Europe and in North America a part of the Armenian
Issue without making any differentiation between them. For instance,
a Turkish worker in Germany, a Turkish art history student in France or
a Turkish deputy candidate in Netherlands, who are totally irrelevant
persons to the topic, can be target of Armenian lobbies. Armenian
Diaspora’s anti-Turkey activities not merely damage the interests of
Turkish State, but also harm the interests of people of Turkish origin
no matter where they live. For instance, numerous Turkish people have
developed a curiosity towards the Armenian Issue just after Armenians’
enduring allegations.
Moreover, these people gained more nationalistic views than they
had before. Armenians’ efforts to persuade Turkey on the issue have
not produce solutions until now. On the contrary, these efforts have
somehow marginalized Turkey to an extent which is not favorable for
Armenians. Maybe the most significant characteristic of Turkey, which
Armenians need to understand, is that Turkey cannot be persuaded on
any political matter merely through use of power or threats. Several
states have attempted to use this way before, however, they have
failed to succeed. For instance, Stalin’s taming policy towards
Turkey by threatening and blackmailing resulted in Turkey’s NATO
membership. Moreover, US’s and EU’s menacing approaches on Cyprus,
Greece and Armenian Issues turned out conversely.
Forcing countries like Turkey, Russia or France, which are highly
sensitive to their national pride, to accept some policies using
threats and blackmailing is not possible. Such an approach even can
create unintended negative consequences which are not beneficial for
the policy makers as it was in the Armenian Issue.
As Armenians’ anti-Turkey campaigns got harsher, Turkey’s attitude
became more disagreeable in accordance.
Another mortal wrong in the Armenian strategy regarding the issue
is Armenians’ seeking for backing of other countries. This approach
is a disease of Armenian nationalism. Armenian nationalists, who
witnessed numerous Christian minorities’ gaining of independence
with the support of Russia and other Western states in 19th century,
planned a similar independence for Armenia. In this perspective,
Armenian separatist nationalists were encouraged by France, Russia,
England and United States and were mostly backed by these countries
as well. Yet, it became very clear by the end of the World War I
that the great powers of the age sought their own advantages more
than Armenians’, contrary to what was expected. Moreover, in these
years Armenians were left alone by these states almost in every
uneasy situation. For instance, France promised Armenians for an
independent state in Cilicia, thus France could reduce its loses in
the World War I with the help of Armenian Legion while debilitating
the Ottoman State from inside at the same time. However, when Turks
had started to gain significant success against France, France left
Armenians alone while being the first occupier to leave the Turkish
territory. Likely, Russians had ignored Armenians’ benefits to get
along with Turkey and they never considered Armenians unless Armenian
interests served to theirs. There are many instances that Armenians
were used as a tool for the benefits of great powers in the history.
It is a fact that when Armenians and Turks are compared in terms of
their economic, political and military possessing, Armenians compose
an inconsiderable group for the great powers. If a great power
prefers to better its relations with Armenians instead of Turks,
it should be noted that this power aims to debilitate Turks and
to create instability in Turkish state more than trying to please
Armenians. Great powers can sometimes camouflage their easy aims
with higher political, religious or humanitarian values. However,
almost 200 years old Armenian case presents that Russia and Western
powers’ supports of Armenians has never been constant nor this
support has considered Armenian benefits directly. Unless Armenians
stop dreaming to debilitate Turkey with the help of backings of the
other countries, they cannot have a powerful and stable state and
strong regional relations.
As it is widely known, this simple fact was underlined by the first
president of the Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian as well. Petrossian and
his team, who realized that Russia’s backing of Armenia debilitates
Armenia instead of solving the regional disputes, tried to enhance
Armenia’s own power instead of seeking foreign support. Yet,
Petrossian’s approach, which could be considered as the milestone of
modern Armenian history, was hampered by Russia and Diaspora radicals
unfortunately."
Q: Why Armenian Diaspora behaves in this way?
SL: "First of all, the Diaspora lives in an imaginary world and it
has marginalized from the reality of Armenian Issue as the years
passed by. When we focus on the second and third generations, we see
that they hate Turks more than the Armenians who witnessed the 1915
events. Moreover, we also know that there are numerous Armenians who
still have a deep love of Turkey although they experienced emigration
and other conflicts in the Ottoman State. Since young generations
neither know Turks personally nor they take the problem rationally,
they are angrier of Turks than their ancestors. Moreover, many of
them are even full of hatred against Turks. Especially in Diaspora,
Armenian generations are imposed with hatred against Turks in churches,
schools or camps of radical political parties. 1915 events are written
and rewritten more emotionally in the Diaspora every day by being
more exaggerated at the same time.
Armenians’ stateless position for long years can be considered as
the primary reason of this situation. State means responsibility
which prevents masses from being marginalized and from following
superficial paths which do not fit reality. Armenians stayed stateless
until 1991 and they carried a stateless nationalism in the Diaspora for
approximately 70 years. Another negative effect of statelessness is the
immature development of the Armenian identity and lack of fulfillment
of nationalistic tendencies through legitimate ways. Another threat
of statelessness is the assimilation. Even today, greater numbers
of Armenians live in Diaspora than the numbers of Armenians live in
Armenia. Many of the Armenians scattered around Canada, Latin America,
Russia and France. Moreover, Diaspora Armenians come from diverse
cultural backgrounds as well. Some of these Diaspora Armenians
come from Russia and Armenia, some from Iran and Arab countries,
and some from Anatolia. Thus, their cultures and even languages are
sometimes differ from each other significantly. Hence, collecting such
a scattered society under an umbrella identity is really tough. Church
and some Diaspora institutions saw Turkish- Armenian problems as a
cure to heal this inefficiency.
In other words, Armenian cause has long been considered as a cement
to protect Armenians from assimilation and to keep them together in
Diaspora. Approaching the issue from this perspective should not
be understood as an underestimation of the problems between Turks
and Armenians. There had been major problems between Turks and
Armenians and Diaspora’s abuse of these problems -deliberately or
notÃ~C¢ââ~@~Z&# xC2;¬" does not reduce the significance of these problems."
Q: Do you believe there is an industry over Armenian Genocide?
SL: "Yes, that’s true. Many get political and economic benefits from
Armenian cause in Diaspora. Numerous people have become well-known,
strong or rich thanks to Armenian cause. Maybe these changes are not
even premeditated. As a matter of fact, the most dangerous aspect
of the issue is these unintended consequences of the issue. Strong
reflexes came about in the process and these reflexes helped to
existence of the problem more than solving it."
Q: What are the wrongs of Turkish side?
SL: "When a problem is scattered around a century, people, who derive
benefit from this handicap, occur in two sides in tandem. In other
words, industry over Armenian Issue is not only present in the
Armenian party of the dispute but also it is at hand in Turkish
side as well. In Turkish side, this industry is composed of less
numbers of people and it is much more political than it is in the
Armenian side. With the multiparty regime, an ideological group
arose as a result of their fear of losing their interests. This
group manipulated the governments by speculating upon threats
that Turkey was witnessing and it even withdrew the governments
via military coups. Since May 27 military coup, there has been an
interior conflict between the elected representatives of Turkish
people and a militarist group. When Turkish democracy got stronger
and economic-social-political pluralism was enhanced, the militarist
cadre lost its power before the representatives of the state. Thus,
this militarist cadre sought for collaboration with nationalist-right
and ultra-nationalist left, moreover, it manipulated the Kurdish Issue,
Cyprus Issue, relations with neighbors, European Union process and
Armenian Issue mostly. In other words, endurance of Armenian Issue
was employed as a tool to hamper democratization in Turkey and some
paid efforts to make it unsolvable."
Q: What are the other faults of Turkey considering the issue?
SL: "Maybe Turkey’s most significant fault on the issue is the
ignorance of Armenian Issue for a long time. Until a Turkish
ambassador’s assassination in 1973, even finding a book on the topic
was impossible in Turkey. Afterwards, Turkey perceived issue as a
state problem and a few number of books appeared with the support
of Turkish state. As ASALA and Tashnak terrorists assassinated
numerous numbers of Turkish ambassadors, Turkey started to share
special budgets for the solution of the disputes over Armenian
allegations. However, that date was a bit late for a concrete
solution and the state backed studies and researches were weak
and skin-deep considering the complexity of the issue. Especially
during September 12 period, in which army withdrew the government,
numerous studies on the issue was published in Turkey. These books
were sent to many libraries in the world as well. However, many of
these books were borrowed by fanatic Armenians and were never brought
back. Moreover some pro-Turkish books were destroyed as a result of
fanatic Armenian readers’ vandalism. Nevertheless, if Turkey could
take the issue apart from a state problem and could set universities
and civil society into action, it could be much more successful in
handling the issue. While approaching the issue from this perspective,
I do not mean "Turkey failed in its propaganda. It should have gone
further.’ It is certain that Turkey’s approach to the Armenian Issue
is ineffective and this is not that favorable for Armenians as it
is expected. Turkey’s presentation of its stance modestly would help
the solution of the problem in depth."
Q: When Turkey’s approach to issue is considered, how would Turkey
can help the solution of the problem?
SL: "There are basically three significant aspects of the issue
to which Turkey can contribute directly. Democratization, full
membership to the European Union, and more dialogue with neighbors
including Armenia and Armenians are these aspects. When Turkey is
more democratized, the militarist groups, who get benefit from the
unsolvable situation of the Armenian Issue, will leave the government,
EU process will accelerate and the relations with other neighbors
including Armenia will better accordingly. Indeed, all three stages
will affect and help each other in tandem.
Interestingly enough, Armenians have tried to hamper Turkey’s EU
process via manipulating the Armenian Issue."
Q: What are the possible solutions to the problems from the Armenian?
SL: "What should Armenians do was analyzed very well by Hrant
Dink, Turkish Armenian journalist, who was martyred by the Turkish
deep state. For Dink, first thing that Armenians need to do was
to end the hostility towards Turks which moves like a poison in
their veins. Armenians’ accusation of Turkey for anything goes
bad was not only wrong but also dangerous for Dink. As he assumed,
numerous problems of Armenians were shadowed by the excuse of Turkish
threat. Hrant Dink’s second suggestion for Armenians was that Armenians
needed to focus on maintaining stability in their country instead of
keeping the hostility towards Turkish people alive. Dink also used
to think that Armenians gained their independence after longing for
years thus maintaining stability and gaining power was hard as well as
survival of the Armenian State. Moreover, Dink believed that unless
Armenians collaborate, keeping the Armenian State alive was not that
easy. To sum up, only if Armenians end the hostility towards Turkey,
which poisons their blood, they can reach a common ground in Turkish-
Armenian relations."
Q: Do you have further suggestions on the topic?
SL: "First of all, parties should change the communication language
that they are using. If you employ a way of communication which is
highly offensive, you will possibly receive an offensive expression
from whom you address.
Second, if you aim to impress the party who you are addressing, and
want to express yourself, you need to talk to him/her. Whenever Turkey
demands a communication to talk about the allegations, Armenian side
says "There is nothing to talk on, yet, just accept your misdeeds’. I
call this stance as "shut up and accept’ mood. To clarify, trying
to impose some policies without listening other is not an acceptable
approach in international relations. Such a stance would be at least
"rude’. Thus, whatever their beliefs and allegations are, the parties
should consider each others’ opinions and they also need to follow
international relations rhetoric and be polite as well."