Tanir Akcam on Armenian-Turkish Reconciliation

ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807
Fax: 416-512-1736
E-mail: zoryan@idirect.ca

August 30, 2001

The Zoryan Institute asked Dr. Taner Akçam, author of the
recently published book, Dialogue Across an International Divide:
Essays Towards a Turkish-Armenian Dialogue, to write a commentary
on the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission from the
perspective of Turkish civil society. Dr. Akçam submitted the
following, with the note that most of these ideas have already
appeared in Turkish, in such newspapers as Agos.



The Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission:

A Commentary from the Perspective of Turkish Civil Society

by Taner Akçam


At first glance, the announcement of the creation of a Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission in Geneva on July 10 is a positive step
that everyone must applaud. It can be regarded as a victory for the
circles that have been striving for a Turkish-Armenian dialogue for
a long time, despite the difficulties they had to face. For those
unfamiliar with this background, let me simply state that the past
year especially has been marked by initiatives by a number of
individuals and organizations to promote Turkish-Armenian dialogue,
which have encountered a harsh reaction from the Turkish
State. Since the announcement in Geneva was made with the tacit
support of the Turkish State, as will explained below, this
indicates a fundamental change in Turkey's policy regarding the
Armenian problem. That policy can be summarized simply as, `there
is no `Armenian problem' today,' and if there is, it is the fault
of the Armenians, themselves. Up to now, the State's policy has
manifested itself in the persistent refusal of any discussion with
the Armenians and the denial of any such problem, since the
foundation of Republic. It seems now that the Turkish State is
tacitly conceding its policy has failed. In this sense, the
Commission marks a turning point in the history of the Turkish-Armenian
conflict. This is especially true regarding developments now going
on in Turkey the attempts to deal openly with history, and the
advancing of the democratization process versus the attacks on its
proponents where the side effect of this initiative is more
important than the initiative itself. Why Turkey has abandoned its
old policy is an important subject, but must be left for a separate
discussion.

There are three different groups that could take credit for this
breakthrough. The first is the USA, which, for its geo-political,
economic and military considerations, wants to help Turkey. The
second is the Armenian Diaspora, which doggedly struggled for
acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide by the world and
especially by the Turkish State. The sudden recognition by several
European states recently encouraged the Diaspora, who has struggled
to keep the issue alive during the past decades, and propelled the
lobbying efforts to convince governments to adopt the recognition
of the Armenian genocide. This could be a conspicuous reason for
Turkey's move to the reconciliation table. The third group,
although perhaps politically powerless at the moment, but which, in
the long term, is the most powerful factor for change in the
Turkish State, because they are the force for democratization in
Turkey, consists of the civil political groups inside and outside
Turkey, who have been struggling for years for a dialogue between
Armenians and Turks, for the benefit of both the Turkish and
Armenian states.

Before I touch on some points regarding this Commission, which seem
to me causes for serious concern, I wish to stress that, regardless
of the character of the initiative, there will be two important and
positive side effects in Turkey. First, the frozen and harsh
atmosphere regarding the `Armenian issue' will melt, and the
possibility of talking openly about Turkish-Armenian problems will
increase. Second, as a result of the first point, the position of
moderate circles will be strengthened. In this sense, this
Commission is a very positive attempt and a good step forward in
breaking out of the vicious circle of Turkish-Armenian relations.

There are, however, some very obvious flaws in this Commission: a)
the secrecy in which it was formed; b) the nature of the Turkish
participants; c) the deliberate ignoring by the Turkish
participants of the importance of Turkey's history relative to its
present, seeing them even as contradictory.

First of all, why was it necessary for the Turkish State to meet
with Armenians in secret? After all, those who would oppose such a
meeting are part of the very same circle that participated in the
Geneva meeting. The people who participated in Geneva are part of
the same circle that has led the witch-hunt in the Turkish press
against certain academics who have called for dialogue and an open
debate about history. It is the Turkish State, itself, which has
oppressed the civil groups in Turkey that have been struggling for
a dialogue with Armenians for years. If the participants in this
Commission are from the same circle, then why are they meeting in
secret? Who are they afraid of? There is no one, other than
themselves, who would oppose such a meeting. After all, all the
Turkish participants are well connected to the very inner circle of
the ruling elite, which itself has become a state within a state
(derin devlet). Furthermore, they have declared that their
participation in this Commission is with the awareness of the
Turkish State. The idea of hiding oneself from oneself is
incomprehensible. This secrecy is not only suspicious; it produces
a negative result, as it diminishes support from society. It could
indicate that the aim of the Turkish State may be something other
than seeking a dialogue with Armenians.

The second flaw is that the individuals who are participating in
this Commission are also of concern. Some of them are known for
their negative attitude towards Turkish-Armenian dialogue. For
example, Gündüz Aktan is notorious for his role during the
debates regarding an Armenian genocide resolution in the American
Congress last fall. He was the leader of the propagandists who
fought vehemently against `the Armenian lie' and defined the
Armenian-Turkish Conflict, especially the genocide issue, as `war.'
He openly declared that the `war' against the Armenian Thesis (the
claim of genocide) should be an important task of the Turkish
Government and wrote many articles about how this war should be
conducted. There is no one among these Turkish participants who has
actively been involved in Turkish-Armenian dialogue, and would
therefore have some credibility with Turkish society on this
issue. It further indicates that the aim of the Turkish State might
be something other than seeking a dialogue with Armenians.

The third flaw, the downplaying of history, is a fundamental
one. Although the Commission's terms of reference state that it
`will secure expertise based on project requirements, and may
include specialists on historical, psychological and legal
matters,' it seems that the Turkish participants interpret this in
a peculiar way. For example, in a press conference held right after
the announcement of the establishment of the Commission, Ozdem
Sanberk, former Turkish ambassador to Britain, said, "The intent is
not to find what the truth is, but it is to open new horizons for
the future and enhance mutual understanding.' Turkish Foreign
Minister Ilter Türkmen said, "The commission's task is not to
come to a historical judgment. As the dialogue proceeds, we hope
to be able to overcome problems, but that does not mean we will
come to an exact historical photo of what happened 85 years ago."
They see a big distinction between the past and the present.
Thinking that past and present can not be handled together, the
participants have decided to deal basically with the present. This
is the old way of thinking, and represents a serious flaw in
logic. In the process of dialogue, one should address and overcome
this problem. The dialogue process must include speaking openly and
normally about history, as an important part of the reconciliation
process. History and the present can never be completely separated,
and you can not ignore one in favor of the other. It is impossible
to salvage the present by consigning history to oblivion.

It seems that different concepts of dialogue are emerging. The term
`dialogue,' up to now, was used only by civil society. The Turkish
State will now adopt this term and make it part of the foundation
of Turkish-Armenian relations. This is not necessarily bad. We can
surmise, however, that the dialogue process approved by the Turkish
State will be more or less a bargaining process. First, it will try
to avoid any discussion of history; but if the topic can not be
avoided, it will try to control the discussion. In this process it
will follow a double-edged policy. While holding out the carrot of
`Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation' to the international community,
in order to mitigate the pressure on itself, it will wield the
stick of political pressure against the internal groups of Turkey
that have been calling for genuine dialogue. The Turkish State
really has tried everything to stigmatize, terrorize and
criminalize these groups. Now the State wants to take this process
under its control. It is obvious what it is trying to
accomplish. It will try to ensure that the dialogue process does
not take the form of a debate on history, and especially a debate
on genocide. It will try to cut any connection with history and
will argue that, in order to achieve reconciliation, we should not
put history in the spotlight.

No one should ignore the reality that the most important part of
dialogue is readiness to speak about history openly. I do not want
to get stuck on the term `genocide,' but by the minimum ethical
standard, it is an essential requirement to condemn that mass
killing in history. We know that Turkish society has been blinded
by an 85-year long policy of denial. We are aware of this fact and
for that very reason we initiated the idea of dialogue. After 85
years of silence, Armenians and Turks should talk with each other,
with only one precondition: the readiness to listen. Everything
else (friendly relations, to connect with each other on various
levels, such as business or social interaction, etc.) must be
combined with talking about history. I have written at length about
this in my book, Insan Haklari ve Ermeni Sorunu: Ittihat ve
Terakki'den Kurtulus Savasina, published in Turkey, and in Dialogue
Across an International Divide: Essays Towards a Turkish-Armenian
Dialogue, translated and published by the Zoryan Institute.

Whatever the intentions, it seems that civil society in Turkey has
achieved a big success, because it is the moral victor in this
process. There may be only a handful of those active in this
struggle, but together with the international pressure on Turkey,
their argument is finally becoming effective. It is a good feeling
for a proponent of reconciliation that the Turkish Government now
finally acknowledges the absolute necessity of dialogue.

Let me make some suggestions for what would be a genuine approach
to Turkish-Armenian dialogue and reconciliation.

First, the Commission must extend its membership to include
individuals who have been active in the Turkish-Armenian dialogue
issue, and who have credibility.

Second, the seriousness of this Commission (and the Turkish State),
and its ultimate success, will be measured by how it deals with the
circles who have been striving for dialogue for so long. If the
witch-hunts, the stigmatizing, the terrorizing, and the
criminalizing of these circles continue, it means there is really
no change in Turkey's long-standing policy. In that case, the
Turkish side would not be fulfilling its promise, and the work of
the Commission would be meaningless. If a desire for dialogue
really exists, the easiest way to achieve it would be to no longer
suppress the civil groups and to let the process flow naturally.

Third, there has to be an open discussion of Turkey's history. Open
debate of the past in Turkish society must be treated as something
normal. At the same time, history and the present must be treated
as equally important in this process. If Turkey can begin to face
the problems in its history, then it can begin to also face the
problems in its present. This is the real benefit of dialogue.

Finally, while it is understandable that trust of Turkey is not
strong at this time, because of its long history of misdeeds and
falsification, Turkey's readiness to come to the table and talk
with Armenians must be appreciated by all concerned. No one should
expect a total change overnight. We should follow the process
critically and observe Turkey's behavior from this point forward,
especially its treatment of its own internal dissenters. It is in
the Turkish State's own hands to change others' perception of it.