[Reconciliation] Why is it impossible?

Turkish Daily News
Jan 9 2002

Why is it impossible?
BY GUNDUZ AKTAN, ANKARA - TURKISH DAILY NEWS



Criticizing Armenians who had joined the Turco-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission (TARC), the Dashnak Party (ARF) and the ANC
stated that they were against any dialogue with Turkey unless the
latter recognized the Armenian genocide. They say major breakthroughs
have been made for the recognition of the genocide in French, Italian
and European Parliaments,but not in the U.S. House of
Representatives, which declined to recognize the genocide at the last
minute. But the ARF and ANC claimed with a little persuasion the
entire world would recognize it and Armenia would negotiate from a
position of strength with Turkey the land and compensation questions.
However, they felt that TARC has prevented these developments.

Since moderate Armenians, under the influence of these opinions,
failed to support TARC, it is necessary to reiterate what those who
represent the general line of the Turkish public opinion can accept
or reject regarding the genocide allegation.

Many Turkish experts have repeatedly stated the 1915-1916 events were
a tragedy. They noted that the number of Armenians who died during
these events, varied from 200,000 to 600,000. The Armenians lost
their houses, jobs, monuments, and lands which they called homeland.
Families were dispersed, wealth destroyed. It is easier than
generally expected for the Turks, 30-40 percent of whom immigrated
from the Balkans, to feel empathy for the Armenians.

However, there are also things that the Turkish people can never
forget:

Isn't known that the Armenians rebelled many times since the 1860s
for independence under the pretext of reforms and autonomy, as did
the Balkan Christians. They established the Hunchak and Dashnak
organizations to this end. They massacred civilian Turks by a form of
violence which is defined today as terrorism. Thus they provoked the
Turks to kill in return the Armenian civilians in order to urge big
powers to intervene on their behalf. Not only the Turks but also the
Armenians said and wrote these facts.

Since 1830, Russia transferred the Armenians from Anatolia and Iran
to the Caucasus, while driving away the Turks and Muslims to Anatolia
through ethnic cleansing.

During World War I, Armenian rebels fought in cooperation with the
Russian Army, which invaded Anatolia, in order to gain their
independence. They stabbed the Ottoman armies in the back. Due to the
fact that their population constituted only 16 percent of the total
in the region they called Armenia, the ethnic cleansing they carried
out to become majority was very cruel. Isn't this the historical
truth?

Was not the relocation decision taken for this reason?

The relocation caused much less harm when compared with the ethnic
cleansing carried out by the Russians in the Caucasus and the
Christians in the Balkans by attacking the Turkish civilian masses
with their armies. The highest number of deaths happened among those
who had to flee from the Russian and Ottoman armies in Eastern
Anatolia without having time to take any precautions. In this
respect, isn't it a fact that 1,250,000 Turks and Muslims died in
this region as recorded by German, Armenian and Ottoman sources?

In short, unlike the Jews, the Armenians formed a "political" group
conducting military operations with political aims. Various crime may
also be committed against civilian members of a political group, but
these crimes do not fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
Moreover unlike anti-Semites, Turks had never intended to destroy
Armenians because they were Armenians. According to the Convention,
this intention can only be present if there is a racial hatred.
Contrary to the claims of the movie "Ararat," the Turks never hated
Armenians.

Isn't that the reaons why the Armenians try to avoid legal conflict
resolution mechanisms? The holocaust was the verdict reached at the
Nurnberg trials and quite naturally recognized by the world. The
Armenians, ont he other hand, tried hard to convince certain
parliaments to recognize the genocidethrough lobbying activities,
backed up with huge amounts of money or through threatening MPs not
to vote in the electionss. In other words, their efforts get the
recognition of genocide are artificial. Isn't there some differences
between the two cases?

The Dashnaks, who joined the Russians in carrying out ethnic
cleansing against the Turks with their 16 percent of the population,
had in fact the main responsibility for the relocation. The only way
to put the blame of this horrible responsibility on the Turks is
through a genocide claim.

The Turks, 5 million of whom died in the Balkans and the Caucasus due
to ethnic cleansing, and another 5 million were forced to immigrate
to Anatolia, cannot recognize a limited relocation as genocide while
their tragedies are relegated to oblivion. That may be known!

-----------
Copyright 2001, Turkish Daily News. This article is redistributed with
permission for personal use of Groong readers. No part of this article
may be reproduced, further distributed or archived without the prior
permission of the publisher. Contact Turkish Daily News Online at
http://www.TurkishDailyNews.com for details.
-----------