Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BAKU: Yes, Reconciliation - But For All!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BAKU: Yes, Reconciliation - But For All!

    YES, RECONCILIATION - BUT FOR ALL!

    news.az
    Nov 30 2011
    Azerbaijan

    by Cem Oguz, head of the Turkish Center for Strategic and International
    Studies.

    Nowadays, it has become highly fashionable to talk about the need for
    reconciliation with the past, particularly if the issue in question
    is the Turkish-Armenian relations. But nobody has clarified what
    reconciliation with the past means. What indeed are the prerequisites
    of this vogue concept? And should it be unilateral, meaning that it
    should only apply to one side, namely the Turks?

    Reconciliation requires a profound break with the past. When
    any imperial rule collapses, however, multiple versions of memory
    spontaneously arise, each forming and mobilizing respective national
    memories of the successor states or former subjects. Any reconciliation
    of conflicting memories, in turn, presumes a gradual dialogue of
    memories, since each party inherently sticks to its own version of
    communal victimhood. In the Armenian case, the situation is more
    complicated. Our Armenian friends themselves admit that memory,
    after all, has been the stronghold of Armenian identity.

    How then can this vicious circle which the respective parties suffer
    from be overcome? By imposition from only one side, as our more
    outspoken Armenian friends fervently wish? But I will pose another
    simple question the answer to which is of grave importance for any
    sort of healthy dialogue between the Turkish and Armenian peoples:
    Have our Armenian friends managed to reconcile with their past, or
    are they, too, in a state of denial and blindly trying to convince
    themselves to be the only victims without any guilt? To put it more
    bluntly, is anyone in Armenia, for instance, ready to objectively
    discuss the Van massacre of 1915 or Khojaly massacre of 1992?

    I unfortunately do not believe that the answer to this question is
    "yes, they did," because of three simple reasons: First of all, for
    outspoken Armenians, the "activists," any resolution to the dispute
    means nothing more than unconditional surrender of Turkey. They live
    in a world of illusions. They still believe, for instance, one day
    they will be able to kick off the Turks of their "homeland," namely
    Turkey's eastern Anatolian provinces. I do not believe that such a
    line of thinking is anyhow ready for compromise. Without compromise,
    however, there will be no resolution.

    Secondly, the Armenian institutions that are thought to represent
    civil society on the Armenian side are not helpful. Those inside
    Armenia are obviously under the strict control of the government.

    Given the character of the Armenian regime today, I do not believe
    that they can act independently. Those of the diaspora, on the other
    hand, believe that they are the first and foremost forbearers of the
    "national cause."

    Thirdly, the "genocide" has become an essential part of Armenian
    identity. The "genocide" is what is assumed to be uniting them. Yet
    the more our Armenian friends put forward their memory, the more the
    Turkish people stick to its own version of communal victim-hood.

    Indeed, for Turks, the recollection doesn't come easily because
    it inherently causes a kind of self-defense reflex. At present, no
    sensible Turk underestimates the extent of the tragedy suffered in
    these lands over the last two centuries. However, I need to remind
    all parties concerned that this tragedy is not one-sided. Turks, too,
    were not immune to mass deportations, killings or having their property
    confiscated by those who claim to have suffered such atrocities.

    Sincere "impartial third parties," for instance, may read of the Turks'
    own tragedy in Professor Justin McCarthy's book entitled "Death and
    Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922."

    Yes, the settlement of the Armenian-Turkish dispute is indeed
    imperative. However, any resolution should be based on ethics but not
    politics with cunning motives. There is an urgent need for empathy,
    but the parliamentary resolutions our Armenian friends are keen on
    will merely justify respective standpoints, further closing doors to
    dialogue. And distorting the facts will eventually backfire on those
    responsible for their fabrication.

Working...
X