Interviews with Ergun Kirlikovali, president-elect of the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations and co-founder of the Pax Turcica Institute.
Q: How would you comment on the French Senate's rejection of a bill to criminalize denial of the alleged "Armenian genocide"?
A: I think that the French legislators finally came to terms with the reality that the only authoritative body to determine whether any claimed historical atrocity constitutes an act of genocide per the relevant 1948 UN Convention is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. No legislature in the world has the authority or moral right to adopt even a non-binding resolution accusing an entire foreign nation of genocide without the legal “due process” at a “competent tribunal”. This is especially so if the narrative relied on is a heavily politicized, partisan and biased one based on a mixture of constantly evolving historical revisionism, paid political lobbying, intimidation, and harassment, as in the Armenian claims. Prosecuting those who refuse to accept such a monumental travesty would constitute insanity, not unlike a modern-style lynching, on behalf of the French legislature.
The decision taken by the French Senate now comes as a stark contrast to the 2001 resolution by the French National Assembly to recognize the so-called "Armenian genocide". Such bigoted resolutions are insulting towards the memory of over half a million Turkish civilians massacred by Armenian armed formations in Eastern Anatolia which triggered the Ottoman decision of temporary resettlement (TERESET) during World War I. And I sincerely hope that some time in future, the French National Assembly will also rescind its 2001 resolution as a deeply racist, biased, dishonest and immoral piece of legislation.
Q: What are the prospects for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation while Armenians try to get the alleged “genocide” recognized in the world?
A: Attempts by Armenian political pressure groups in the diaspora to characterize the temporary resettlement (TERESET) of Armenians by the Ottoman authorities during World War I as an act of genocide not only impede Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, but also strip Armenia of its future. It is ironic that none of those vociferous supporters of historical revisionism and growing Turcophobia in the Armenian diaspora today seem willing to share the real difficulties of Armenian society or to live in independent Armenia.
As far as Turkish-Armenian reconciliation goes, it is a complex process which may take years. There is a tremendous amount of negativity from Armenians towards Turkey and Turkish people which has been fueled for decades by Armenian political interest groups. These groups have exploited their own people to benefit themselves and to ensure their existence through formulation of identity based on anti-Turkism. Such ideology has no place in the 21st century, when international relations are no longer defined by ethnic differences or historical indoctrinations. This hatred must be alleviated, the historical travesty must stop.
The Armenians, both in the diaspora and Armenia, must understand what is meant by “Just Memory”, a term that perhaps best describes the policy of Turkey towards the Turkish-Armenian conflict. “Just Memory” recognizes the suffering of all in the area and era, not just that of the Armenians, and correctly points to the Armenian complicity and responsibility in the turmoil and suffering. No narrative can be taken seriously if it ignores the seven T’s of the Turkish-Armenian conflict: Armenian terrorism, turmoil (revolts), treason, territorial demands, Turkish suffering at the hands of Armenians, TERESET and Turcophobia. “Just Memory” tries to bring sides together based on irrefutable facts, not divide or polarize them with partisan narratives as in genocide claims.
Q: Some people say that the Turkish side is not active enough, or at least not as active as the Armenians, in providing the international community with the real facts about 1915. Do you agree and, if so, what should be done to change the situation?
A: I do agree with this claim to a certain extent, and there are subjective reasons for that. About three million Turks perished during World War I, including 1.1 million in Eastern Anatolia alone, half a million of them at the hands of Armenian armed groups, such as the "fedayeen" of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF - Dashnaktsutyun). Over five million Turks were forcefully displaced between 1821 and 1922 by ethno-religious conflicts from the Balkans to the Caucasus. While the West ignored this enormous Turkish suffering because of prejudice, Turks stayed silent about their own suffering, mostly for cultural reasons. It is not in the Turkish character to cry, scream, complain, beg, and otherwise show public lament in the face of defeat. Turks, as in most other Asian cultures, grieve silently. But this dignified silence of the Turks was deliberately misrepresented by the Armenians as an admission of guilt for the alleged genocide. After the successful conclusion of the war of independence in 1922, Turks, full of hope, established a new republic and embarked upon an ambitious course to rebuild their nation and country. It was time to forgive and forget, establish a lasting peace, both at home and around the world, work hard for a better future and maintain hope. While Turkey cultivated hope and peace to become the 16th largest economy in the world today, Armenians, preferring to cultivate hatred and vengeance, created their current land-locked, poverty-stricken, violent and corrupt society built on irredentist policies and in conflict with all its neighbours.
Nevertheless, unlike Armenians, Turkish society does not suffer from an identity crisis developed over self-imposed interpretations of history. This in turn resulted in the rather soft attitude of Turks towards Armenian allegations. That said, it might be educational to point out that according to unverified sources, Armenians created about 26,000 publications since 1915 compared to the Turkish side’s roughly 1,000, most of which were published in the last three decades. Including the films, documentaries, political resolutions, and media articles, one can clearly see that the Armenians have created an industry around the alleged genocide, but they still cannot prevail. Such is the power of truth. We have a profound proverb in Turkish as you know: “Gunes balcikla sivanmaz” which means one cannot cover the sun with mud. That’s what Armenians have been trying to do since 1915 while the Turks were not looking. Now that the Turks are looking, the Armenians can no longer be allowed to dupe the world.
So, the situation may have fundamentally changed in recent years, mostly because of Turkey's growing influence in the world as well as the increased determination of the Turkish diaspora to stand up for its dignity and rights. Turkish-Americans today are no longer willing to accept Armenian allegations but to confront them with unbiased historical truth. When someone is armed with the truth, no propaganda, political manipulation, intimidation, or harassment can stop that person. That’s how we, Turkish Americans, feel today.
Q: May Turkey improve its relations with Armenia before progress in the Karabakh settlement?
A: In 1991, Turkey was one of the first countries that recognized Armenia's independence and established diplomatic relations with Armenia. However, in April 1993, after the Armenian occupation of Kalbajar District in Azerbaijan outside Nagorno-Karabakh, it became apparent that Armenia is determined to pursue an outright expansionist policy implemented by military aggression. Turkey ceased its diplomatic relations and closed its border with Armenia invoking the violation of international law which was, in fact, also voiced by the United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Armenian forces withdraw from the occupied Kalbajar District. That 1993 decision by the Turkish government was not simply a show of solidarity with Turkic brethren as frequently misrepresented by Armenia and the West, but that of a strong moral and legal stance against injustice, a stance that has distinguished Turks for centuries.
In 2008, Turkey once more demonstrated its good will towards building constructive, neighbourly relations with Armenia by enacting the so-called soccer diplomacy towards Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. After President Gul visited Yerevan in 2008, President Sargsyan came to Bursa in 2009. Then Turkey signed the protocols with Armenia. There are certain steps in response steps that must be taken by Armenia to proceed with the protocols. The key to unlock the deadlock is a demonstration of Armenia's willingness to become a good neighbour and a constructive regional partner. Specifically, Armenia must cease its occupation of Azerbaijani territories and allow for the return of over 800,000 internally displaced Azerbaijani civilians to their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh and seven other adjacent occupied districts of Azerbaijan. Without that, reconciliation with Armenia would be an undignified move for Turkey. Frankly, I cannot see any government in Turkey, past, present or future, that can improve its relations with Armenia before there is tangible progress in the Karabakh settlement acceptable to Azerbaijan. The West must now hear Turkey’s appeal and start showing compassion for the 800,000 Azeri IDPs (internally displaced persons) and reverse the Armenian aggression on Azerbaijani soil.
Q: What are the prospects for a Karabakh settlement?
A: It is clear today that Azerbaijan's influence in the South Caucasus has grown tremendously and that Turkey is transforming from a regional to a global power player, while Armenia is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant in the regional integration processes. In this situation, Armenia must make a choice between a path of gradually losing its independence (while turning into a distant province of Russia) and a path of cooperation and regional re-engagement. The key to this choice is the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, the return of Azerbaijani IDPs to their homes, and the re-establishment of neighbourly relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And the ball of that choice is in Armenia's court now. Aggression can no longer be allowed to stand in this day and age. The sooner Armenia realizes this hard fact, the better it is for the region.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
