In the first half of 1980s, the Armenian terror was continued, but the next half was the time when the Armenian terror stopped at once. However, the problem continued to exist, even more strongly, amongst the mutual relations of Turkey with especially Western countries. In addition, in this period of time, the approach of Turkey towards the Armenian problem seriously changed. In this new era which was shaped by the coup d'etat and the international attitude towards Turkey, Turkey began to approach the problem from different perspectives. The new face of Armenian terror and Turkey's reaction to this change determined the developments in this period.
Initially, with effect of the 12 September coup d'etat in Turkey, Turkey's policies against Armenian terrorism became sharper. Surely the reason of this attitude was that the terrorist acts of the Armenians peaked in the late 1970s and at the beginning of 1980s. Since the first day of their rule, the military government placed struggling against Armenian terror in the first line of its priorities. The method of struggling, however, remained as a matter of debate for a long time. On the other hand, the coup d'etat that broke out in Turkey in 1980 gave an impression to the rest of the world that serious human rights violations are occuring in Turkey, a situation which were added as negative points in the square of Turkey. Bringing the mutual relations of Turkey with especially Europe to a halt, the military government experienced a serious communication gap with European countries against the Armenian attacks and have not been able to express its arguments to the rest of the world.
Despite paying special attention to the Armenian problem, the military government could not achieve a significant progress towards solution. Being deprived of even fundamental information in those days, Turkey moved back and forth between two extreme points: One group were claiming that the toughest reaction must be shown against the Armenian problem. They were thinking that these acts meant a resurge for the spirit of Sevres and they were asserting that relations with the West should be decreased at a minimum level and even Turkey must cease to be a member of NATO. Whereas another group was advising that the matter must not be exagerated too much. According to this group, as it is fact that those who allege should prove their allegation, it was Armenians themselves who needed to prove their claims, and by dwelling upon the matter so much, Turkey was popularising the problem more. The second group also suggested that the allegations of Armenians should be replied back by scientific publication both in Turkish and in other languages and the matter should be left to historians to explain, rather than dealing with it as a matter of politics. While the second idea found its adherents in the environs of the Foreign Ministry, the first idea was mainly pronounced in radical political parties and the army. Both groups have their cons and pros.
However, the experience lived in 1980s showed that both of these ideas are deficient and both attitudes caused Turkey to lose a great time in diplomacy. In this period of time, Turkey suffered a serious disease and could not approach the Armenian problem from a multi-dimensional perspective by establishing an institutional coordination. In other words, in those days, different solution methods and strategies could have been generated for different aspects of the problem. By defining different strategies for terrorist acts, historical claims and political side of the problem, we could have worked for the same goal from diverse directions. Whereas Turkey have not been able to escape from exhibiting emotional and reactionary behaviour in a process timing of which was completely determined by others. Actually this was not a surprising situation. Because, relating to the Armenian problem, the stage where Turkey reached at the beginning of 1980s was just the stage of
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
