Tweet
A "CONCEALMENT-REVISIONIST" DIALOGUE IS NECESSARILY DOOMED TO FAILURE
http://www.repairfuture.net/index.php/en/a-concealment-revisionist-dialogue-is-necessarily-doomed-to-failure
Hilda Tchoboian
Regional councillor of Rhône-Alpes (France)
Born in Aleppo, Syria, Hilda Tchoboian studied in France. In 1978, she
became head of the Armenian Culture House in Decines (France) until
2010. She works in favor of the recognition of the Armenian genocide
by international organizations (UN, European Parliament). President
of the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy based
in Brussels from 2002 to 2011, she has worked as a consultant for
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Dialogue between Turks and Armenians has undoubtedly been one of
the defining features of the relationships btween the two peoples
in the last years, ushering a change in the nature and status of
these relations. However, although initiatives in this field may
seem spontaneous, a closer look at the dominant rhetoric of that
"dialogue" and at the course of Turkish-Armenian relations in the
last ten years clearly shows a planned and controlled process by
the Turkish government, who successfully delegated to the civil
society the handling of an extremely embarrassing issue which has been
plaguing Turkey's relations with Western countries for two decades and,
more annoyingly, is hindering its entry into the European Union. The
dialogue process was thus implemented to defuse the legitimate claims
to the recognition of the genocide and to reparations stated by the
Armenian community in the Diaspora as well as in Armenia. On the
eve of each international decision affecting its national interests,
Turkey would launch a new dialogue initiative.
In the end, since its inception, the Turkish-Armenian dialogue has
nurtured a new Turkish strategy of dodging the Armenian genocide
issue while not questioning revisionism as a structured, supported
and geographically disseminated State policy.
On the Armenian side, the motives driving proponents of dialogue do
not stem out of political reflection. This dialogue is experienced as
an expression of humane feelings. Some weariness can also be noted
in the face of the deadlock created by Turkish revisionism, with an
occasional search for new ways to get rid of a psychological burden.
On the other hand, many instances suggest that some Turkish
"Dialoguists" view dialogue with Armenians as a form a negotiation, a
transaction which can only operate through concessions imposed equally
on both sides. Everyone knows that a transaction is designed to reach
a win/win solution, which characterizes every successful negotiation.
Therefore, in order to negotiate, you have to respect the dignity
and beliefs of the Turkish speaker by legitimizing the revisionist
views which are part of his education. (On this subject, see the
collaborative work by Ahmed Insel and Michel Marian, "Dialogue on an
Armenian Taboo," reviewing the emblematic case of writer Ahmed Insel,
a brilliant, media-loved, French-speaking Turkish intellectual, who
nevertheless tries to explain his refusal of the word "genocide" as
a result of the education he received in a Kemalist and nationalistic
family.)
If, for some Dialoguists, the underlying goal is to find a common
ground about the very reality of genocide, we understand the reason
behind the rejection of the term "genocide" and its replacement by
far-fetched phrases such as "the G word". The principle is to replace
public recognition by phrases belonging to the private sphere: the
phrasing of the apology campaign to Armenians is a case in point:
"My conscience cannot accept that we should remain indifferent to the
Great Catastrophe that Ottoman Armenians have undergone in 1915, and
that it should be negated. I reject this injustice and, as for me,
share the feelings and sorrow of my Armenian sisters and brothers,
and ask them for forgiveness."
There is no denying the courage of those who initiated this
campaign, given the well-known unwholesome atmosphere, in Turkey,
of widespread racism and violence against the Armenians. However,
the words underlined above attest to a deliberate will to eliminate
the genocide from the public and political field, which makes the
whole text incomprehensible when it comes to asking for forgiveness.
Some questions thus remain unanswered:
- Who must ask forgiveness for a State crime?
- Who is entitled to forgive in the case of a genocidal crime?
As for forgiveness itself, it is a very old concept. If gestures of
reconciliation by which the victim stops wanting to get revenge must
be called forgiveness, they are associated everywhere to an accepted
"blood price." One should distinguish the "forgiveness-deal" from the
"forgiveness-renouncement," for the offender who has admitted to his
offence and repents.
Forgiveness is a gift which liberates from a past offence. It frees the
future from the burden of the past. Therefore, two Western traditions
of forgiveness contradict each other:
- On the one hand, you can only forgive if the offender confesses,
asks for forgiveness, repents, and therefore changes. But then,
someone who exposes himself in this way is somehow already another
person. It is thus not the offender himself who is being forgiven.
- On the other hand, forgiveness is granted as a free and generous
gesture, an ultimate pardon, without an expected trade-off or
compensation, without repentance or requested forgiveness. It is
then granted to the offender as an offender. It is forgiveness at
its purest.
What is therefore the status of asking for forgiveness while carefully
avoiding to name the guilty and the object to be forgiven?
Without these precisions clarifying and qualifying the action, this
request cannot fit in any of the two categories offered by philosophers
of forgiveness:
- The offender begs his victim for forgiveness and proves that he
has changed, or
- Forgiveness is bestowed freely by the victim.
Ironically, the Armenians thanking Turkish authors are the ones who
display all the traits of unilateral forgiveness, expecting nothing
in return, in front of an absence of genuine request for forgiveness.
Genesis: It started in 2001. After a string of successes obtained
in 2000 by the Armenian Diaspora- recognition by the French Senate,
the Italian Parliament and the Vatican; First Report on Turkey by
the European Parliament asking the Grand National Assembly of Turkey
to recognize the genocide; a bill nearly submitted to the vote of
American Congress until it was opposed by President Clinton - the
French Foreign Affairs (seemingly with the help of American advisers)
suggested a new approach to the Turkish government to placate the
growing demand for Armenian Genocide recognition: dialogue.
Financed by the American State Department, presided by David Phillips,
the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) was born,
bringing together former diplomats, scholars and personalities from
Turkey, Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora. The Commission recommended
exchanges between the two civil societies in the fields of the media,
culture, economy, education, partnership between Armenian and Turkish
women and between Armenian and Turkish leaders; the only banned theme
was the Armenian genocide.
In TARC, as in the 2008 Campaign for Forgiveness, a few side statements
surrounding the initiatives confirmed the Machiavellian view on the
Turkish part.
As former Turkish diplomat Ozdem Sanberk put it about TARC:
"As long as we keep up talks with Armenians, the question of genocide
will never appear on the agenda of the American Congress."
And Baskin Oran about the plea for forgiveness: "The Prime Minister
should pray for our campaign. Parliaments throughout the world were
passing resolutions. Now they will stop. The Diaspora mellowed.
International media are starting not to use the word genocide."
(Milliyet 19th December 2008). What is more, several Turkish
members of TARC resigned when, upon request by Armenian members, the
InternationalCenter for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) examined whether
the 1948 Convention was applicable to the genocide of Armenians.
In conclusion, if dialogue is to be given the meaning of
reconciliation, the Turkish-Armenian dialogue is missing at least
two essential elements which are found in all the previous cases of
reconciliation processes in the world - from South Africa to Argentina,
Peru, Australia and Togo: Truth/Recognition and Justice/Reparation.
Today, a "concealment-revisionist" dialogue, exploited for the best
strategic interests of the Turkish state, is necessarily doomed
to failure. Even if the road towards recognition is long, Turkish
intellectuals should commit to following it, in the wake of the likes
of Zarakolu, Saït Cetin and Dogan Ozguden, who take great risks,
but whose quest for justice inspires trust.
http://www.repairfuture.net/index.php/en/a-concealment-revisionist-dialogue-is-necessarily-doomed-to-failure
Hilda Tchoboian
Regional councillor of Rhône-Alpes (France)
Born in Aleppo, Syria, Hilda Tchoboian studied in France. In 1978, she
became head of the Armenian Culture House in Decines (France) until
2010. She works in favor of the recognition of the Armenian genocide
by international organizations (UN, European Parliament). President
of the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy based
in Brussels from 2002 to 2011, she has worked as a consultant for
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Dialogue between Turks and Armenians has undoubtedly been one of
the defining features of the relationships btween the two peoples
in the last years, ushering a change in the nature and status of
these relations. However, although initiatives in this field may
seem spontaneous, a closer look at the dominant rhetoric of that
"dialogue" and at the course of Turkish-Armenian relations in the
last ten years clearly shows a planned and controlled process by
the Turkish government, who successfully delegated to the civil
society the handling of an extremely embarrassing issue which has been
plaguing Turkey's relations with Western countries for two decades and,
more annoyingly, is hindering its entry into the European Union. The
dialogue process was thus implemented to defuse the legitimate claims
to the recognition of the genocide and to reparations stated by the
Armenian community in the Diaspora as well as in Armenia. On the
eve of each international decision affecting its national interests,
Turkey would launch a new dialogue initiative.
In the end, since its inception, the Turkish-Armenian dialogue has
nurtured a new Turkish strategy of dodging the Armenian genocide
issue while not questioning revisionism as a structured, supported
and geographically disseminated State policy.
On the Armenian side, the motives driving proponents of dialogue do
not stem out of political reflection. This dialogue is experienced as
an expression of humane feelings. Some weariness can also be noted
in the face of the deadlock created by Turkish revisionism, with an
occasional search for new ways to get rid of a psychological burden.
On the other hand, many instances suggest that some Turkish
"Dialoguists" view dialogue with Armenians as a form a negotiation, a
transaction which can only operate through concessions imposed equally
on both sides. Everyone knows that a transaction is designed to reach
a win/win solution, which characterizes every successful negotiation.
Therefore, in order to negotiate, you have to respect the dignity
and beliefs of the Turkish speaker by legitimizing the revisionist
views which are part of his education. (On this subject, see the
collaborative work by Ahmed Insel and Michel Marian, "Dialogue on an
Armenian Taboo," reviewing the emblematic case of writer Ahmed Insel,
a brilliant, media-loved, French-speaking Turkish intellectual, who
nevertheless tries to explain his refusal of the word "genocide" as
a result of the education he received in a Kemalist and nationalistic
family.)
If, for some Dialoguists, the underlying goal is to find a common
ground about the very reality of genocide, we understand the reason
behind the rejection of the term "genocide" and its replacement by
far-fetched phrases such as "the G word". The principle is to replace
public recognition by phrases belonging to the private sphere: the
phrasing of the apology campaign to Armenians is a case in point:
"My conscience cannot accept that we should remain indifferent to the
Great Catastrophe that Ottoman Armenians have undergone in 1915, and
that it should be negated. I reject this injustice and, as for me,
share the feelings and sorrow of my Armenian sisters and brothers,
and ask them for forgiveness."
There is no denying the courage of those who initiated this
campaign, given the well-known unwholesome atmosphere, in Turkey,
of widespread racism and violence against the Armenians. However,
the words underlined above attest to a deliberate will to eliminate
the genocide from the public and political field, which makes the
whole text incomprehensible when it comes to asking for forgiveness.
Some questions thus remain unanswered:
- Who must ask forgiveness for a State crime?
- Who is entitled to forgive in the case of a genocidal crime?
As for forgiveness itself, it is a very old concept. If gestures of
reconciliation by which the victim stops wanting to get revenge must
be called forgiveness, they are associated everywhere to an accepted
"blood price." One should distinguish the "forgiveness-deal" from the
"forgiveness-renouncement," for the offender who has admitted to his
offence and repents.
Forgiveness is a gift which liberates from a past offence. It frees the
future from the burden of the past. Therefore, two Western traditions
of forgiveness contradict each other:
- On the one hand, you can only forgive if the offender confesses,
asks for forgiveness, repents, and therefore changes. But then,
someone who exposes himself in this way is somehow already another
person. It is thus not the offender himself who is being forgiven.
- On the other hand, forgiveness is granted as a free and generous
gesture, an ultimate pardon, without an expected trade-off or
compensation, without repentance or requested forgiveness. It is
then granted to the offender as an offender. It is forgiveness at
its purest.
What is therefore the status of asking for forgiveness while carefully
avoiding to name the guilty and the object to be forgiven?
Without these precisions clarifying and qualifying the action, this
request cannot fit in any of the two categories offered by philosophers
of forgiveness:
- The offender begs his victim for forgiveness and proves that he
has changed, or
- Forgiveness is bestowed freely by the victim.
Ironically, the Armenians thanking Turkish authors are the ones who
display all the traits of unilateral forgiveness, expecting nothing
in return, in front of an absence of genuine request for forgiveness.
Genesis: It started in 2001. After a string of successes obtained
in 2000 by the Armenian Diaspora- recognition by the French Senate,
the Italian Parliament and the Vatican; First Report on Turkey by
the European Parliament asking the Grand National Assembly of Turkey
to recognize the genocide; a bill nearly submitted to the vote of
American Congress until it was opposed by President Clinton - the
French Foreign Affairs (seemingly with the help of American advisers)
suggested a new approach to the Turkish government to placate the
growing demand for Armenian Genocide recognition: dialogue.
Financed by the American State Department, presided by David Phillips,
the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) was born,
bringing together former diplomats, scholars and personalities from
Turkey, Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora. The Commission recommended
exchanges between the two civil societies in the fields of the media,
culture, economy, education, partnership between Armenian and Turkish
women and between Armenian and Turkish leaders; the only banned theme
was the Armenian genocide.
In TARC, as in the 2008 Campaign for Forgiveness, a few side statements
surrounding the initiatives confirmed the Machiavellian view on the
Turkish part.
As former Turkish diplomat Ozdem Sanberk put it about TARC:
"As long as we keep up talks with Armenians, the question of genocide
will never appear on the agenda of the American Congress."
And Baskin Oran about the plea for forgiveness: "The Prime Minister
should pray for our campaign. Parliaments throughout the world were
passing resolutions. Now they will stop. The Diaspora mellowed.
International media are starting not to use the word genocide."
(Milliyet 19th December 2008). What is more, several Turkish
members of TARC resigned when, upon request by Armenian members, the
InternationalCenter for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) examined whether
the 1948 Convention was applicable to the genocide of Armenians.
In conclusion, if dialogue is to be given the meaning of
reconciliation, the Turkish-Armenian dialogue is missing at least
two essential elements which are found in all the previous cases of
reconciliation processes in the world - from South Africa to Argentina,
Peru, Australia and Togo: Truth/Recognition and Justice/Reparation.
Today, a "concealment-revisionist" dialogue, exploited for the best
strategic interests of the Turkish state, is necessarily doomed
to failure. Even if the road towards recognition is long, Turkish
intellectuals should commit to following it, in the wake of the likes
of Zarakolu, Saït Cetin and Dogan Ozguden, who take great risks,
but whose quest for justice inspires trust.