Turkey and Armenia: If Turkey wants to belong to the West, it must not deny the Genocide of 1915 - 'Die Welt' newspaper, by Hannes Stein, 12 December 2002
Introduction by Dr. Harry Hagopian - Turkey and Armenia: if Turkey wants to belong to the West, it must not deny the Genocide of 1915
Much has been said and written about the Copenhagen Summit last week that welcomed ten new members into the European Club of 15!
One major discussion during those negotiations dwelt around a possible date being offered to Turkey for the start-up of negotiations leading up to its accession to the EU sometime this decade.
The EU examined the 'Turkey file' and its implementation of the 'Copenhagen Criteria' that require the enforcement of democracy, human rights, minorities' rights and economic reform. They found the file wanting, and the case was deferred for another review in December 2004.
I just came back from business in Brussels today, and it seems clear that the main supporters of a concrete and quick date for Turkey were the UK, Germany and Spain - in that clear order. The UK Government was deemed to be doing the US bidding for Turkish membership, and less 'european' reasons were also ascribed to its position.
As you all know, a date was not fixed - which caused Turkish vocal outrage at first, and then diplomacy took over Turkish rash pronouncements to avoid further setbacks.
During this time, much was written about the Summit, and its various dimensions - including the Turkish refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide to date. Many statements were also issued, not least those carried forward on a pan-European basis by the European Armenian Federation in Brussels (www.eafjd.org) and other Armenian organs.
Today, I share with you another perspective too. It is one that was written by Hannes Stein and published in the Die Welt German newspaper on 12 December 2002. Die Welt is one of the leading conservative papers in Germany, and Hannes Stein is a respected journalist who worked for some time in Jerusalem.
The most interesting and 'novel' aspect is the fact that the German position of non-acknowledgement is being taken to task.This could prove an interesting chink in the armour of denialist attitudes.
Moreover, it also focuses on a few points that I find quite interesting for further consideration and action:
aa. The article disclaims any legal notion of State Responsibility, and avers that modern-day Turkey bears no responsibility for its ancestor regime. This point is very much a moot one with some international lawyers, but accepted as one legal standpoint toward the Genocide.
bb. Although it also states that there can be no Armenian demands for territory or 'substantial' material compensation, it also adds that so long 'as Turkey denies the genocide, it will never find inner peace'. It asserts that 'the descendants of those who survived the killing have the right to see that the deported, those driven out into the desert of Dayr az-Zor, the tortured, the beaten, the starved, and the drowned children, can finally rest in peace'.
cc. It re-affirms the need for Turkish adherence (which means more than mere subscription) to the Copenhagen Criteria - particularly here inasmuch as it impacts minorities.
dd. It reminds the readers that the French National Assembly officially condemned the Armenian Genocide of 1915, and that the German Bundestag ought to follow this example.
The article is interesting as it applies to Germany. However, it arguments could well apply to the UK as well. This is perhaps why much needs to be done between now and December 2004 in this regard - not necessarily with a determined focus of keeping Turkey out for the sake of keeping it out, but rather for the sake of forcing Turkey's hand on its collective and historical psyches - not least the Armenian Genocide.
This becomes more relevant now that the UK - and the USA - suffered a major reversal with the EU decision.
Turkey and Armenia: If Turkey wants to belong to the West, it must not deny the Genocide of 1915 - 'Die Welt' newspaper, 12 December 2002 By Hannes Stein
The whole world (at least in Germany) is arguing whether Turkey will, or should, or must, become a member of the exclusive club of the European nations. Does the Republic of Turkey belong culturally to Europe or not? Doesn't Asia begin at the Bosphorus? What does `culturally' really mean? And just what is `Europe' anyway?
I propose replacing the question `Does Turkey belong to Europe?' with another one: `Does Turkey belong to the West?' Here, with `the West' no geographical location is meant, and also no specific culture or concept of the state. The West is characterized more by the willingness to question itself, repeatedly and fundamentally. Only those countries which give full honour to those who have the courage to `dirty the nest' deserve to be called `Western'.
Thus France is a Western country, because there one can speak freely and openly about the tortures during the Algerian war for independence. The USA is Western, because every decent schoolchild there knows about the massacres during the wars against the Indians, and about the crime of black slavery.
Bertolt Brecht once wrote `Let others speak of their shames; I will speak of my own.' (Not that he necessarily did so!) Even so, this statement waves invisibly as the motto on the flag of every Western state. Certainly liberal democracy is based in the first order on parliamentary elections, the separation of powers, and freedom of assembly. But all these wonderful things are a mathematical function of the capability to shine light on the dark, horrible, embarrassing, and shameful things in one's own history.
This is particularly important for Turkey, which is hiding a mountain of corpses in the cellar of its history. In 1915, the Ottomans carried out the first modern genocide, in which perished a million and a half Armenian men, women, and children. This genocide is well documented. There are eyewitness accounts from the German writer Armin T. Wegner, from the American Ambassador Henry J. Morgenthau Senior, and from the Austrian military envoy Pomiankowski. There are numerous reports and telegrams that attest to the crime from the vantage point of those who carried it out. Some time after the First World War, Turkey itself sought to punish those in the regime who had coldly planned and implemented the slaughter. But soon, however, this gave way to denial.
This is fundamentally absurd, since the Turkish Republic has no responsibility, from the legal standpoint, for what the preceding regime had done. Even so, the official discourse in Turkey insists to this date that the genocide of the Armenians never happened. The official version goes as follows: The Armenians, during the
First World War, with Russian assistance staged a revolt which was suppressed. Massacre? Yes, there was a massacre - The Armenians carried one out on the Turks. And in this way, the victims are killed once again afterwards - through lies.
Does Turkey belong to the West? Does Turkey want to belong to the West? If so, then Turkey must stop behaving like a child in the belief that it can make itself invisible by covering its eyes. Turkey must finally look the facts in the bloody face. Let there be no misunderstandings: No one is seriously demanding that Turkey do any favours for the Armenians. There can be no demands for territory or substantial material compensation. But the descendants of those who survived the killing have the right to see that the deported, those driven out into the desert of Dayr az-Zor, the tortured, the beaten, the starved, and the drowned
children, can finally rest in peace.
This is above all else in the national interests of Turkey itself. Regardless of whether one speaks in orthodox Freudian terms of a compulsion to relive things, or if one instead speaks in an archaic way of the curse of evil deeds: As long as Turkey denies the genocide, it will never find inner peace. Certainly, that country has fought its way to an impressive degree of freedom: religion and state are separate, there is an elected parliament, and even a partially-free press. But since the genocide of the Armenians remains a taboo, the temptation is always there to resolve minority problems with the methods of those days. The Kurds, for instance, can tell a sad tale on this score. If liberal democracy is the fruit of striving to look one's own shames in the eye, then it will still be a while before harvest time in Turkey.
This is an article in a German newspaper. Germany has the worst genocide of history on its conscience. Yet even in the First World War, officers of the German Empire assisted their Turkish allies in driving Armenians into oblivion. Should this not be a reason for German foreign policy today to speak of its own shame? And particularly when it comes to talking with its Turkish counterparts?
The French National Assembly has officially condemned the genocide of 1915. Is it not time that the German Bundestag follow this example?