Tweet
Aztag Daily, Lebanon
March 28, 2007
EDITORIAL:
THE NEW PROPAGANDA WAR
Shahan Kandaharian
Editor in chief
(Translated from Armenian)
Without underestimating and overestimating the productivity of the
Turkish government's policy concerning the opening ceremony of the
restored Holy Cross church in Aghtamar, it is necessary to think
about what aspects have been registered so far and what their hidden
motives are.
The priority purpose of this issue, which has been a subject of
discussion for a long time, is to invite the world's attention to the
Turkish "reconstructive" policy. As for the aspects, the decision of
the government to restore the church is in the first place, of
course; then comes the scheduling the opening ceremony which is later
postponed; next is the tug of war to determine whether the
construction should be considered a church or a museum; and finally
there appears the problem if a cross will be placed on the dome of
the church.
These artificial debates, which are being brought forth through the
efforts of the Turkish government, seem to be productive in their
immediate purpose. Not only Turkish and Armenian circles, but also
European and international centers have been following and responding
to these debates.
However, our silence in order not to create a fundamental
contradictions between the Armenian leaders in Istanbul who have
established positions and the political circles located overseas, and
at the same time our position in not following the rules of a game
being initiated by the Turkish government have become a problem, the
discussion of which needs a discreet approach, as well as the
adoption of political prisms by the maintenance of the national
pivot.
In reality of course, the problem is political, which is disguised
under a religious-cultural veil. We have to admit that this is a new
manner of a propaganda war which is carried out by the Turkish
government. The Turkish government itself has given the proof of such
an affirmation, which has shaken the formality of protecting cultural
values, when the Turkish Ministry of Culture was not able to give an
answer to the proposal of the Armenian patriarchate of Istanbul
concerning the placing of the cross on the dome of the Holy Cross
Church, thus acknowledging that making such decisions are not within
his jurisdiction. So the problem has been transferred to the profound
government.
By just mentioning this proposal, the Armenian patriarchate of
Istanbul turned upside down the rule of the Turkish-initiated game.
The Turkish side cannot give a "cultural" answer; such questions must
be asked to the people acting from behind the screen, who are the
coordinators of the governmental policy and propaganda. The
above-mentioned confession must be emphasized in order to show to the
world the extent of the ease with which the problem is continuously
being pushed forward.
It is obvious that the problem has its complexities. Our disregard of
European and international standards, as well as our being in an
opposing position do not necessarily assist our mode of understanding
the problem. In spite of knowing exactly what the real motive and the
pursued aim are, here we must show a distinct political elasticity
and continue to withstand the weapons which are being used during the
new kind of propaganda war.
The demand that the Holy Cross church be under the supervision of the
Armenian patriarchate is obviously the second step in order to turn
the rules of the game upside down. Turkey, in its efforts to secure
sums of money in the context of tourism, has to give an explanation
for its rejection.
If Turkey wants to represent itself to Europe as a government which
respects the rights of national-religious minorities, then its
tendency to secure credits for its diplomacy are questionable due to
its rejections. Anyone who respects the rights of national-religious
minorities should deliver the church to its owner.
These are daring questions and proposals which are sounding from
Armenian centers in Istanbul, especially when we take into
consideration the conditions under which they act.
It seems that the Armenian government is also moving with expected
caution. Sending a delegation lead by the vice minister of culture
has its implications, and at the same time reverses the position of
being placed in the challenger's corner; it also confronts the
challenge which has appeared with the new propaganda war.
All these are not limited to Aghtamar only. We have to be ready for a
new series of `restorations.'
March 28, 2007
EDITORIAL:
THE NEW PROPAGANDA WAR
Shahan Kandaharian
Editor in chief
(Translated from Armenian)
Without underestimating and overestimating the productivity of the
Turkish government's policy concerning the opening ceremony of the
restored Holy Cross church in Aghtamar, it is necessary to think
about what aspects have been registered so far and what their hidden
motives are.
The priority purpose of this issue, which has been a subject of
discussion for a long time, is to invite the world's attention to the
Turkish "reconstructive" policy. As for the aspects, the decision of
the government to restore the church is in the first place, of
course; then comes the scheduling the opening ceremony which is later
postponed; next is the tug of war to determine whether the
construction should be considered a church or a museum; and finally
there appears the problem if a cross will be placed on the dome of
the church.
These artificial debates, which are being brought forth through the
efforts of the Turkish government, seem to be productive in their
immediate purpose. Not only Turkish and Armenian circles, but also
European and international centers have been following and responding
to these debates.
However, our silence in order not to create a fundamental
contradictions between the Armenian leaders in Istanbul who have
established positions and the political circles located overseas, and
at the same time our position in not following the rules of a game
being initiated by the Turkish government have become a problem, the
discussion of which needs a discreet approach, as well as the
adoption of political prisms by the maintenance of the national
pivot.
In reality of course, the problem is political, which is disguised
under a religious-cultural veil. We have to admit that this is a new
manner of a propaganda war which is carried out by the Turkish
government. The Turkish government itself has given the proof of such
an affirmation, which has shaken the formality of protecting cultural
values, when the Turkish Ministry of Culture was not able to give an
answer to the proposal of the Armenian patriarchate of Istanbul
concerning the placing of the cross on the dome of the Holy Cross
Church, thus acknowledging that making such decisions are not within
his jurisdiction. So the problem has been transferred to the profound
government.
By just mentioning this proposal, the Armenian patriarchate of
Istanbul turned upside down the rule of the Turkish-initiated game.
The Turkish side cannot give a "cultural" answer; such questions must
be asked to the people acting from behind the screen, who are the
coordinators of the governmental policy and propaganda. The
above-mentioned confession must be emphasized in order to show to the
world the extent of the ease with which the problem is continuously
being pushed forward.
It is obvious that the problem has its complexities. Our disregard of
European and international standards, as well as our being in an
opposing position do not necessarily assist our mode of understanding
the problem. In spite of knowing exactly what the real motive and the
pursued aim are, here we must show a distinct political elasticity
and continue to withstand the weapons which are being used during the
new kind of propaganda war.
The demand that the Holy Cross church be under the supervision of the
Armenian patriarchate is obviously the second step in order to turn
the rules of the game upside down. Turkey, in its efforts to secure
sums of money in the context of tourism, has to give an explanation
for its rejection.
If Turkey wants to represent itself to Europe as a government which
respects the rights of national-religious minorities, then its
tendency to secure credits for its diplomacy are questionable due to
its rejections. Anyone who respects the rights of national-religious
minorities should deliver the church to its owner.
These are daring questions and proposals which are sounding from
Armenian centers in Istanbul, especially when we take into
consideration the conditions under which they act.
It seems that the Armenian government is also moving with expected
caution. Sending a delegation lead by the vice minister of culture
has its implications, and at the same time reverses the position of
being placed in the challenger's corner; it also confronts the
challenge which has appeared with the new propaganda war.
All these are not limited to Aghtamar only. We have to be ready for a
new series of `restorations.'