In Turkey, a first-ever debate about Armenian mass killings
On eve of EU accession talks, a conference on the World War I massacres stirs controversy.
By Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor, Istanbul, 26/9/2005
Opposition to a conference about mass killings of Armenians moved
from Turkish courtrooms to the street over the weekend as scholars
discussed the World War I massacres publicly for the first time on
Turkish soil.
Turkish nationalists, who back the official line that there was no
Armenian genocide, sought to make their views embarrassingly plain by
hurling eggs and tomatoes outside Istanbul Bilgi University, a back-up
venue used to skirt a court order Thursday that sought to shut down the
conference at another location.
But participants cast the event as a breakthrough for expanding
civil society - a key issue as Turkey prepares to open talks Oct. 3
over accession to the European Union. "The most important thing is that
this [conference] is happening at all," said Cengiz Candar, a prominent
columnist for Bugun newspaper, who was hit by an egg as he spoke
outside the conference. “It will help to recoup some of Turkey's
negative image and, more fundamentally, its commitment to the EU and
democracy."
Potential EU membership has prompted a raft of democratic changes
in recent years - including more freedom of expression. EU officials
say they view the conference as a benchmark for tolerance, warning
after the court ruling of a "provocation" that could hurt Turkey's
case.
Armenians say that 1.5 million Armenians (historians often count 1
million) died in the first systematic genocide of the 20th century, at
the hands of Ottoman Turkish forces.
In Turkey, the official version holds that some 300,000 Armenians
died as they took up arms to push for independence and sided with
invading Russian armies. The partisan conflict, Turkey has argued, took
just as many Turkish Muslim lives.
Questioning that version can lead to prosecution of people
considered traitors, the term used by nationalist lawyers who
petitioned for the conference closure. Well-known novelist Orhan Pamuk
faces trial in December for "denigrating" the Turkish state by
mentioning an Armenian and Kurdish death toll during an interview.
Last May, the justice minister said the conference was a "stab in
the Turkish nation's back," prompting it to be postponed, and tapping
into hard-line elements.
"Laws change during a war, and when some of your citizens, on your
soil, hit you in the back, then any nation on earth would punish them,"
says Volkan Ekiz, a protester whose group lobbed eggs and tomatoes this
weekend as police looked on.
"It's not a scientific conference. It's the Turkish war of
independence, and nobody can say that it's genocide," said Uckun Gerai,
a central committee member of the nationalist Worker's Party of Turkey,
outside the conference. "Turkey has a problem with the US and EU, but
it's a political problem.
"Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister
Abdullah Gul, keenly aware of the challenges ahead in EU talks, spoke
forcefully in favor of the conference after the Thursday court
decision. Mr. Erdogan said he wants a Turkey "where liberties are
practiced to the full".
Halil Berktay, coordinator of the history department at Sabanci
University, says the opposition was not surprising. "This is a country
of more than 70 million, with a strong nationalist past; there are
strong forces opposed to the European Union, to democracy and opening
up," he says.
But, he adds, "the question of what happened in 1915-1916 is not a
mystery, it's not like we know just 5 percent. We know 85 percent, so
the question is not finding more evidence. The question is liberating
scholarship from the nationalist taboos...."
Finding the balance between modernizing Turkey - the eastern anchor
of the NATO alliance - and dealing with its staunchly statist history
has not been easy. A further challenge is overcoming reluctance in the
EU to accepting a Muslim state.
"Turkey has to confront its history, and the fact of the violence
of 1915 and 1916, and lack of accountability, sanctioned more [state]
violence," says Fatma Muge Gocek, a sociologist at the University of
Michigan and a conference adviser.
"The discourse is not new; the fact that it is said in Turkey is what matters," says Ms. Gocek. "They are great developments."
Candar shares the optimism. "The judiciary is one of the most
reactionary and backward institutions in Turkey, and the illegal
[court] verdict reflects the inherent problems," he charges. "But the
fact that we are discussing this is ample evidence to be optimistic."
Links:
www.csmonitor.com/2005/0926/p07s02-woeu.html

