Genocide and PatrimonyPosted: Friday, January 05, 2001 10:16 AM UT | Updated: October 20, 2022. “In acknowledging the genocide, the Turks would acknowledge, at the same time, a common patrimony, a shared history, no matter how tragic or glorious it may be.” On November 7, 2000, French senators voted in favor of recognizing the genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman and Young Turk governments by a vote of 160 to 40. On the 15th of the same month, the European Parliament also voted in its favor: 234 against 213, with 93 abstentions. This decision, as could be expected, has displeased Ankara, and her anticipated displeasure must be proportional to her anxiety and impatience to join the European Community. Pending entry, Ankara should meditate on the growing European concern about how she deals with her "internal affairs," be they the Armenian massacres at the end of the 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th century, or those perpetrated by the Republican armies against the Kurds today. These "internal affairs" have always been carried out in defiance of any law or code which seeks to preserve human dignity when faced with violation, humiliation, or mortification. The systematic and professional destruction, pillaging and torture on the part of Turkish authorities reveal the intransigence of a government that cynically denies the right of a non-Turk to share the same soil without having to efface his identity, conceal his language in public, prostrate before a Republicanism that refuses to acknowledge his or her historical contribution, his or her ontological makeup. Reveal, too, the policy of political segregation and racism, which rejects the other -- he who is different -- outside a political or social tissue, outside a historical framework. Reveal, finally, an extraordinary insensitivity to comprehend the other, to specify a policy which would integrate (and not assimilate) the other into the History of Turkey -- and not merely as some "extra" or "supernumerary" but as an integral part of that history. The Armenians were possessors of a patrimony of enormous social, cultural and political import. One that today must be fully integrated into the History of Turkey if Turkey is to be fully integrated into Europe's modern history. A patrimony that must be resuscitated from a century of systematic desecration and effacement of calculated neglect. For, unlike war, a genocide aims at eradicating life at its very sources. Slaughtered, deported or exiled, the very name of Armenia disappeared from the maps. To many Turks (and foreigners), Ani, the medieval capital of Armenia, a remarkable jewel encrusted in the ruggedness of Asia Minor, remains a Byzantine site; likewise Akhtamar. As to Horomozst, four kilometers from Ani, Saint Bartholomew at Albayrak (actually a military base) and Varak near Van, they remain, in the eyes of the Turkish authorities, nameless piles of stone because they are unworthy of patrimonial distinction, of Republican consideration; they belong to a forgotten period. FRIGHTENING LOGIC The logic of this patrimonial effacement is frightening. Following the massacres and deportations, these Eastern territories, now occupied by Kurds, have been completely disregarded by Turkish industrial or touristic contractors, as if some ugly testimony lay entombed, deep, shunned by the "modern world." Now Ankara argues that this disregard is due to the "Kurdish problem" which requires heavy military activities in the area: PKK terrorist nests (villages) wiped off the map, forced relocations of Kurdish villagers, construction of military bases from which reprisals are carried out, even into Iraq. The "wiping out" of Kurdish villagers is accomplished in terrifying efficiency, as witnessed by many Turkish or Kurdish writers and journalists who have spent or are now spending time in prison for having reported it. It seems then, as was the case with the Armenians, the Kurds, too, have no right to a patrimony, be it the official use of their language (there are still many Turks who believe that Kurdish is a "dialect" of the Turkish language) or their own television programs. For Ankara deems these concessions seeds of separatism. The European recognition of the genocide of the Armenian people goes well beyond a mere date of commemoration; it strikes at Turkey's adamant attitude of refusing any outside "interference" in her internal affairs. Here we are not insinuating that NATO forces go in and "resolve" the Turkish-Kurdish war in the same way they interceded between the Serbs and Albanians. We are speaking about diplomatic intercession, which seeks to resolve two parties who are at loggerheads about civil rights and political identity. Intercession that transforms an "internal affair" into an international one a (hi)story into history. And yet Ankara maintains her political position and historic arguments. That this tragedy should be come a political quibble and issue amongst European politicians has scandalized Turkish historians and intellectuals who esteem that politicians should not trespass the bounds of their competence, meaning that the event must be kept within a scientific framework. In other words, Turkish and foreign historians will continue bickering about statistics (1.5 million or 500,000?), unfound telegrams, unidentified bodies in Armenian, or Turkish, mass graves, false testimonies, etc. But in fact there remains nothing more to be proved historically; the political consensus is proof enough even amongst the many Turks living in Europe. That Ankara should publicly claim that the European Parliament is a "Christian Club" whose decision manifests a religious bias towards Muslims is not only absurd but dishonest: genocide signifies the extermination of a race and nor a religion. And that the Pope should agree with the European Parliament's decision has nothing to do with the decision in itself. NAIVETE PLUS IGNORANCE That the Turkish government should avail themselves of the testimonies of the 60,000 Armenians living in Istanbul today who have publicly decried the genocide thesis as a historical fallacy is a product of extraordinary naiveté mixed with self-indulgent ignorance. Does Ankara expect the Armenians of Istanbul to leap and shout for joy in the streets, they who know perfectly well that any adhesion to the genocide thesis could bring ill fortune to their community? The threats and humiliations they endured during the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan still remain fresh in their memories. Now it is hoped that, with Europe's recognition, the American government will follow in its wake. And one may truly think that, with the bill approval in November, American Armenians will also have reason to sing and cheer as their European brothers and cousins did. However, we are more skeptical on this bill approval: America's military and economic interests in Turkey weigh more heavily and "vitally" than Europe's. To begin with, why should the American Congress provoke Turkey, NATO's second largest army, from whose military base at Incirlik American and English aircraft are presently controlling Iraq's air space? Surely not for Mister James Rogan's senatorial campaign in California . . . Secondly, a four-billion-dollar attack helicopter tender with Bell Company could be cancelled if Congress "makes the wrong decision": are a few electoral votes in California worth four billion dollars? Thirdly, and most importantly, America's commercial and military engagement in the Caucasus requires Turkey's (especially, its extreme right-wing groups) and Azerbaijan's collaboration against their arch petrol rivals and enemies: Russia, Armenia and Iran. It would appear to us highly improbable that the American Congress make such enormous sacrifices for Mister Rogan, or for the Armenian community in America as a whole. As was Senator Robert Dole's campaign, James Rogan's too smacks of electoral profiteering; a short-term vote-winner insensitive to any ethical, ethnic or historical duty. The American Congress cannot afford to pamper either vote-gathering senators or disenchanted Armenians for, unlike Europe, she has no joker in her hand. One may even say that America depends more on Turkey than Turkey on America . . . . POLICY TOWARD TURKEY Europe today has finally elaborated a long-term policy in its relationship to Turkey, obliging her to reconsider her position vis-à-vis Armenians and Armenia, obliging her to resituate Armenia historically, and thus, politically, integrating Armenians into the history of Turkey in the same manner that the Turks have wished to become integrated into a modern History of Europe. If one is to take, one must also learn to give. Now this, of course, would entail indemnifying those Armenians despoiled during the tragedy; it would also entail restoring and researching the vast medieval Armenian archeological heritage that is gradually decaying in Eastern Turkey. The costs indeed would be great, but what other country can boast of such an archeological treasure? Armenia's patrimony is also Turkey's . . . Finally, the long-term policy would oblige Ankara to meditate on its present destruction of the ethnic Kurds so as to resituate them too into a shared patrimony - in other words, into a veritable republic. This signifies engaging in dialogue with the PKK, liberating imprisoned writers and journalists, putting an end to mock trials (Ocalan). This signifies accepting the other as he or she is because he or she is different, and not because we want him or her to be like us! Turkey's road into Europe is not as straight and smooth as she may think: neither Armenian, nor Kurd - or Western European, for that matter - will let her continually squander the very wealth and weal of humanity: difference and dignity of this difference! Europe will no longer plead ignorant and resign itself to the brutal molding of a multicultural heritage into an ideological uniformity and call it Republicanism. Here we are not speaking about separatism, independence or assimilation; our views are much more modest and practical: a historical and political integration (or reintegration), both of the past and the present, would pave the way for the writing of a veritable History of Turkey, a history that, as far as we are concerned, has yet to be written because the perspectives of those who have contributed to it have been excluded, minimized, deprecated . . . considered as lies or propaganda. In acknowledging the genocide, the Turks would acknowledge, at the same time, a common patrimony, a shared history, no matter how tragic or glorious it may be. No one here should judge. The "duty of memory" does not seek judgment; it seeks understanding, compromise and reconciliation. Only God judges . . . . Indeed, a recognition that would permit the writing of a History of Turkey, in which the myriad Armenian, Turkish, Kurdish, Syrian, Jewish and Greek stories, scattered and dissimilated here and there, be gradually compiled into a vast history, a fresco of modern Turkey, comparable thus to that of Europe, India or China. If Turkey has labored so strenuously at seeking a political and cultural existence within Europe's institutions, she must also labor just as hard in recognizing those who lived, live and will live on her own soil. If this is not achieved, there is no sense in her belonging to a multicultural community.... Beijing, China |
Armenian, Assyrian and Hellenic Genocide News