A hundred years ago in this land, the state killed a group of its subjects with brutal, horrific methods. The state not only physically annihilated its subjects, but also confiscated the properties and wealth they had created, imposed a policy of denial and oblivion, erased traces of their existence, and developed a discourse of animosity and hate towards the group it annihilated.
Those studying the concept of genocide indicate that genocide is not limited to killing individuals, that is, physical annihilation. It is generally accepted that genocide includes other crimes such as the denial of what has been done, policies of forgetting, expropriation, assimilation, deleting evidence, increased oppression and bans on memorializing. Furthermore, the impunity of these crimes opens the door wide for new crimes.
Cynthia Enloe suggests that it is hard to decide when a period of genocide starts and ends.
In other words, the Armenian genocide did not start and end in 1915, a hundred years ago. This is a process which includes a number of coordinated actions for demolishing the main pillars of Armenian existence and erasing their traces, and this process continues today. The destruction and trauma caused by genocide is reproduced, new human groups are designated as dispensable, and violence continues to rule over our lives in every field. The brutal and absurd have become systematic.1
According to Raphael Lemkin,2 the genocide has two phases: The first is the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the second, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.3
As such, genocides are not only destructive, but in a sense, creative, constitutive processes: They create nations, states, identities and riches.
The supposedly “new” state founded in the aftermath of 1915 was also built on this basis of genocide. The system was devised accordingly; administrative and legal means were designed to justify the genocide, Armenians’ properties were confiscated and pillaging became ordinary and legitimate. A new identity was imposed, and minds were shaped in this environment.
One hundred years of silence
In order to establish the myths designed to legitimize the new order, it was necessary to ensure that the horrible crimes and appalling sins committed during the founding of the republic were forgotten. The new myths were thus cemented together with denial and oblivion.4
The politics of denial and oblivion succeeded for such a long time mainly because the society, which participated in or remained silent regarding the crimes, also chose to forget. We are talking about one hundred years of silence here. Why did people remain silent for so many years and why are they starting to talk about it now?
The first reasons for silence that spring to mind may be fear and oppression, and that may be right. However, fear and oppression do not suffice in explaining the silence that reigned outside public spaces, for instance, in private spheres. Aside from fear and oppression, shame and guilt have also played a huge role. The atrocities of 1915 took place in front of everyone. One does not need to be a perpetrator of this heinous crime to feel shame and guilt. Would not the shame and guilt of having witnessed yet remaining silent to what happened poison people’s lives? Furthermore, didn’t a section of the society partake in the pillage of Armenians’ riches even if they did not kill Armenians themselves; did not everyone, to an extent large or small, confiscate a house, field, cattle, or even mattresses and household belongings of the Armenian? If you have participated somehow in a crime, you choose silence and denial. Even if you had a very minor gain, it was nonetheless immoral; you feel shame and remain silent because you have somehow participated in this heinous crime. You go along with the state’s policy of denial and silence; you approve it.
Is eternal oblivion possible?
History is filled with attempts to forget the heavy burden of the past, or making a fresh start by cleansing oneself from the horrific and painful events of history. In the aftermath of the Peloponnesian Wars, a law was issued banning the reminiscence of the bitter events and horrible circumstances of the past. After Caesar was killed, Cicero said in the Senate that “the murderous discord should be consigned to eternal oblivion.”5 The politics of eternal oblivion also dominate the official Turkish discourse and historiography regarding 1915: A case in point is the following passage by Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, a historian of the epoch and a biographer of Mustafa Kemal:
“I believe that the hostilities and scuffle between Turks and Armenians is a part of history which is best forgotten. Which side was the first or original perpetrator? Who? Again, I believe that it is best to not seek answers to these questions and to forget the whole story for good.”6
However, despite the policy of eternal oblivion, despite bans on and laws against memorializing, eternal oblivion never takes place. Humans cannot forget something they have experienced or learned.
That is because, according to Nietzsche, humans just cannot learn to forget. They may run as fast as they like but their chains will simply drag along with them.
On the other hand, the policy of eternal oblivion can never be practiced by the victims of history. As the victims continue to demand truth and justice, the policy of oblivion, which might have temporarily accomplishmented something, starts to crack here and there; its plaster begins to come off. Even if it is reinforced as strongly as possible, the inevitable end arrives and taboos are eventually shattered.
In the last twenty years, Turkey has been going through a comprehensive process where a number of “taboos” are questioned at the same time. A national identity based on a specific ethnicity, religion and denomination (Turkish, Muslim and Sunnite), which delegates women to a secondary position and is heterosexist is no longer taken for granted by everyone.7
Pioneered by civil society, this process of questioning has led to significant ruptures in the official historical discourse. Identities are questioned, new stories are told eagerly about recent history and families’ past, books are penned, documentaries and films are made. The Armenian Genocide commemorations on April 24, which had started in Istanbul, now spread to other cities.
The idea that coming to terms with the past is an integral part of the struggle for democracy is embraced by more and more people, and accordingly the crimes of the past are repeatedly placed on the public agenda. The role of the Kurds in the genocide is discussed and Kurdish politicians offer their apologies, which reinforce the culture of democracy and has repercussions among the Armenian community.
From denial to the “message of condolence”
While these developments were taking place in civil society, the then-Prime Minister Erdoğan issued an unusual statement, interpreted by some as a “message of condolence” to Armenians, a year before the centenary of the genocide, on April 23, 2014. The message, which included the words “It is a duty of humanity to acknowledge that Armenians remember the suffering experienced in that period, just like every other citizen of the Ottoman Empire,” was interpreted in different ways in the Armenian community.
Certain circles considered it to be a different version of the policy of denial, some viewed its as a delaying tactic before the centenary of genocide, whereas others thought it to be a new and important step by Turkey to come to terms with its history and expressed their hopes for dialogue and settlement. Certain individuals even placed ads in newspapers to express their gratitude to Erdoğan, or nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Still others considered it to be an insincere act, “a well-calculated tactic to prevent Obama from using the expression ‘genocide.’”
The National Congress of Western Armenians issued the following statement: “The National Congress of Western Armenians considers this statement a first step, and as the Chinese philosopher Lao Tze says, ‘A thousand-mile journey starts with a single step.’ Mr. Erdogan’s step naturally cannot and could not satisfy all the expectations of Western Armenians, who are descendants of the Armenian citizens of the former Ottoman Empire; nevertheless, we are hopeful that after this statement, the authorities in Turkey will join the constructive dialogue that has started between Turkish civil society and ourselves.”
Those circles that claimed that the message simply served to normalize, instrumentalize and trivialize the genocide, expressed the following criticism:
“Suggesting that those who died in 1915 were not only Armenians and that sorrow should be expressed for all deceased Ottoman citizens, is tantamount to saying that nothing ‘special’ or different happened to Armenians. That is equal to saying ‘the state did not take and implement a special resolution concerning Armenians, who were simply victims of the general havoc wreaked by the war’, which is a straightforward lie and denial.”
US President Barack Obama’s statement was not deemed to be satisfactory either.
In his statement issued on April 24, Obama used the expression “medz yeghern” rather than “genocide.”8 He was harshly criticized for not using the word genocide, although what he described was indeed a genocide. Armenian National Committee of America described the statement as “President Obama’s disgraceful capitulation to Turkey’s threats,” full of rhetoric and vague wording.
Expectations, questions, hopes, concerns
We entered the year 2015 in an environment shaped by all these events. The centenary of the genocide fuels expectations, questions, hopes and concerns in the worldwide Armenian community and various circles in Turkey.
There are a number of questions which need to be answered: For instance, what will happen on April 24, 2015? Will there be a change in state policy or will the policy inherent in last year’s statement continue? Will the US President use the expression genocide this year? What will civil society do? What is the Armenian community planning?
If we start with the last questions, the anti-racist and anti-nationalist platform Irkçılığa ve Milliyetçiliğe Dur-De and other NGOs are planning a number of events such as panel discussions, exhibitions and commemorations. The Human Rights Association of Turkey declared that it will commemorate the genocide in 23 cities across Turkey. Some of these events are organized jointly with certain organizations of the diaspora. Groups from the diaspora plan to commemorate April 24 in their ancestral lands and holy shrines, and announce their demands with resolve to their interlocutors and the world.
As for the question whether the US President will use the expression genocide this year, the US is caught between its moral responsibility regarding the genocide and Turkish threats of the withdrawal of the ambassador or the closure of US military bases in Turkey. Barack Obama was criticized for making an April 24 statement different than that of his predecessors, avoiding the word genocide despite describing it. It was stated that “This statement is a new compromise to the strategic partner.”
In consideration of the recent developments in the Middle East and the world, the US is not expected to make a statement that goes against its own strategic interests. However, focusing on the words that come out of US President’s mouth on April 24 as happens every year does not help resolve the issue and relegates the human suffering of 1915 to the back burner. As a result, the issue is reduced to an instrument of greedy lobbying and political haggling. The draft laws presented to the US Congress on this issue are voted on as if it were a football game.
Such an approach not only hurts the grandchildren of the victims deeply, but also instrumentalizes and trivializes the issue. The issue continues to top the agenda year after year.
Any draft law on the issue is inevitably an attempt to secure certain votes in the Congress, which in turn trivializes the plight of Ottoman Armenians by linking them to other issues on the Congress agenda. What results is an ordinary barter of the sort “You vote with me on the draft law on farming, and I will vote with you on the genocide law.”9
We need to put an end to initiatives which instrumentalize suffering and do not focus on humans and human pain, delivering justice or accepting a future-oriented historical responsibility to prevent the recurrence of such suffering.
Will Turkey’s stance change?
Most probably, there will not be a change in last year’s policy of “shared suffering” and “condolence.” Only unexpected international developments might force the government to take steps going beyond that line.
The thesis that no new steps are to be expected is justified with the fact that Turkey will be in an election atmosphere in 2015. Most likely, the government will take a step back while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Turkish Historical Society take the lead. This argument seems to be bolstered by Ambassador Altay Cengizer’s interesting book published last month, entitled Adil Hafızanın Işığında [In the Light of Fair Memory].
These are all possibilities. 2015 is also the centenary of the Dardanelles War, and certainly, Turkey will do its utmost to put war commemorations on top of the agenda and silence the commemorations of April 24. Turkey will also deploy all its means to prevent the US President from pronouncing the word genocide and make lobbying to argue that the issue must be left to historians.
As can be seen, none of the policies that Turkey will probably pursue in the centenary focus on the settlement of the issue. If the US President refrains from the word genocide—and he probably will—please answer me honestly, will the issue be resolved for good? Or if you suppress the voice of the Armenians with alternative propaganda on the Dardanelles War, will the matter be settled and fall from the agenda?
The issue is not a foreign matter, so it simply cannot be delegated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is a matter of redressing an act of immense injustice by the state towards its own citizens. So, solutions must be humane and focus on delivering justice.
At the latest conference of Turkish ambassadors, the president of Turkey’s Commission on EU Affairs Mehmet Tekelioğu said, “We will implement shock activities.”10 What does that mean? Whom will you shock, and with what? Against whom will you organize “shock activities”?
At the conference, Cemil Çiçek said “In 2015, some strangers will organize a campaign across the world about a so-called genocide.”11 This kind of talk nullifies Erdoğan’s “message of condolence” in a clear expression that the state’s policy of denial is still going strong. First of all, those whom you call “some strangers” are the citizens of your country. Or if you are referring to the Armenians of the diaspora, their ancestors, who were the citizens of the same state with your ancestors and driven from their lands due to that the state’s policy of genocide, they have rights. Their rights were violated and they demand justice. How humane is your approach, your discourse; is it solution-oriented? Why do you view 2015 as a year of fighting, campaigns, and shock activities should reach their zenith, and not as an opportunity to settle the problem?
As Hannah Arendt maintained, if an evil act is committed once, there is no reason why it should not repeat itself; what is experienced is inscribed in memory and belongs to the future as much as to the past. It is, more than anything, a matter of healing ourselves together and creating a just future.
- Hannah Arendt, German political scientist.
- Raphael Lemkin, the Polish jurist who coined and defined the word genocide.
- Taner Akçam, Ermenilerin Zorla Müslümanlaştırılması, İletişim, p.81
- Mithat Sancar, “Büyük Yüzleşme Randevusu”, Bas News, Bas Haber Gazetesi, January 5, 2015.
- Mithat Sancar, Geçmişle Hesaplaşma, İletişim, p.37.
- Hülya Adak, İmparatorluğun Çöküş Döneminde Osmanlı Ermenileri, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, p.317.
- Ayşe Gül Altınay, “Müslümanlaştırılmış Ermeni ‘kadın ve çocuklara’a feminist merakla yaklaşmak.”
- Armenian for “the great disaster.”
- Thomas De Waal, “The G-Word: Ermeni katliamı ve soykırım siyaseti”, Agos, January 2, 2015.
- Agos, January 7, 2015.
- Agos, January 7, 2015.