Genocide and coming to terms with its legacy
Soli Ozel, professor of international relations and political science at Bilgi University in Istanbul, Turkey, writes the most thoughtful piece I have read, to date, about the controversy over whether Turks committed genocide against Armenians in 1915.
Politicians, Stay Out of Our History
"Some Turkish historians decided that what happened in 1915 was indeed genocide, while others accepted the catastrophe but did not define it as such. Two years ago, after bitter judicial battles, a conference was finally held in Istanbul that brought together those who had an alternative view of the fate of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. The issue was being normalized and a process of digging deep into history and into the nation’s soul began. Some of those who did not accept the Armenian case wanted to go to the International Court of Justice and have a proper judicial verdict - a course of action the Armenian side did not favor. Yet there were, and are, restrictions on having a truly open debate. Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which punishes those who insult Turkishness, is a Sword of Damocles to those who dare challenge the official version of things.
The Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was tried and sentenced under 301. His murder was a symbol of the intense fight within the country, and it catalyzed a movement. He was targeted and threatened by ultranationalists and, though he was under considerable danger, he was not given protection. His was a murder foretold. Officials in security services connived. The judicial process is a travesty so far.
Yet, close to 200,000 people marched silently at his funeral, holding banners that read, “We are all Hrant,” and “We are all Armenians.” As expected, this infuriated the nationalists and they struck back. The pressure on Turkey by foreign politicians only exacerbated the tension, polarized the country and poisoned the atmosphere. In such a politicized environment even those who may be inclined to look at history differently will refrain from doing so. They see their country and themselves as a nation being subjected to a vicious attack. The Diaspora and their allies are seen to want the Turks to accept the label of genocide and then begin a debate.
Understandably, most Turks believe this is akin to hanging first and asking questions later. The politicization of the issue is now closing the space for debate and freedom of expression. It intensifies a xenophobic nationalism, undermining liberal political openings and further democratization. The current government will not move against 301, even though it is at best profound embarrassment and at worst a sign of obstructionism.
So if the aim was to get to the bottom of the historical truth, to understand what had happened and how it had happened, to set the historical record straight despite all sorts of obfuscation and denial on the part of official historians – if that was the aim, then that aim is now far removed. That is a shame.
Under these circumstances the Congressional resolution is an unnecessary, counterproductive and wrongheaded initiative. It is written with a revanchist intent and gives every indication that the resolution will be used to further political goals. Even those who voted against it did so not because they don’t believe a genocide was committed, but because Turkey is strategically too important for the United States. That certainly does not do Turkey much honor. It’s what I would call cynicism."
There is so much to this discussion that could inform contemporary historical and political understandings, not least of which is the role that more genuine and honest liberal democratic discussion is central to coming to terms with our past and forging our future, and how such an honest discussion is the heart of liberal democratic progress. And, as Ozel argues, it is progress that can only happen as people come to terms with their actions of their own independent accord, not under public or political pressure.
That, in fact, is the most important lesson that liberal democracies have to learn, today. And our failure to do so makes for useless and counterproductive tragedy, not justice or righteousness.
And it is refreshing to read someone reflect on that fact of life honestly, when there is so much bullshit and denial bound up in the language of force and coercion and imposition, these days, to obfuscate that honest fact of life.
At some point, we have to face this fact of life.
And doing so is the only way forward. Because everything else is a lie.
And it means the world to have someone like Soli Ozel to share that deeper truth.
Love,
Ben
