7 minute read
YEREVAN, AUGUST 10, ARMENPRESS: The official attitude on the Armenian Genocide and the systematic practice of ethnic cleansing in Anatolia has reached a new stage with the recent statement by Vecdi Gonul, the former Turkish minister of national defense, to the effect that had these tragic events not occurred, the present-day Republic of Turkey could not have come into being. As Armenpress rteports, turkish writer Ragip Zarakolu in his report entitled ''The Armenian Genocide as a case of preventing self-determination'' came forth with a speech. Repulsive as these words may be, we have to admit that they are much more honest than pure ''denial,'' and imply ''admission'' of what has happened. However, that these tragedies should be presented as necessary, even indispensible, for the '''building of a nation-state,'' accompanied by a ''take it or leave it'' kind of challenge, also comprises an implicit element of ''threat'': ''We've done it before, so you’d better watch out or well do it again''
''Today, it is incumbent upon the Turkish state to extend an apology,'' he writes. ''We who continue to live on this territory owe it as an act of humanity to the Armenians [and to others-RZ] to apologize for what has happened (“An Apology Is Now a Must,” Radikal Iki, Nov. 16, 2008, p. 1).
In this context, I would like to draw attention to two books recently published, both of which facilitate the study and comprehension of the Armenian Genocide, one of the most tragic events in human history, relating to the national question and the exercise of the right to self-determination: Vahakn N. Dadrian's magnum opusThe History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus(published in Turkish under the titleErmeni Soykirimi Tarihi/Balkanlardan Anadolu ve Kafkasya’ya Etnik Catismaby Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik in 2008) andThe Turks and Usby Shahan Natalie, famous for ''Operation Nemesis'' (the book was published in Turkish under the titleBiz Ermeniler ve Turklerby Peri Yayinlari, again in 2008). These books provide an opportunity to understand not 1915 alone, but the period before and after as well. Shahan Natalie's observation, ''the Turks succeeded in building a nation'' is interesting, provided one pose the question, ''at what cost?''
In studying the Armenian tragedy of 1915, it would be useful, if one wishes to understand the question better, to look at the question from the perspective of ''nation building,'' ''self-determination,'' and the fundamental articles of the Genocide Convention.
The “Armenian Question” is one of the most significant instances of the method of leaving a problem to rot rather than solving it. In a certain sense, it is one of the last in a long line of problems created by the two-century-long dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
While the Balkan peoples stepped into the process of nation formation earlier, that is, from the early 19th century onwards, partly under the influence of the French revolution, this process came on the order of the day much later for the Armenian people and the Turks themselves. However, in the latter case, the success of one, in a way, was achieved at the expense of the disappearance of the other.
Thus while the Armenian process of nation formation started earlier relative to that of the Turks, it was a belated process when compared with the Greeks, the Serbs, and the Bulgarians. On the other hand, an important difficulty derived from the fact that the Armenian people were torn between two despotic empires. This division had its impact all the way down to language. The Armenian language was to develop in two different branches, as Western and Eastern Armenian.
But the depopulation of this territory was in line with the wishes of many colonial powers. The German right wanted Anatolia to be opened up for German settlement in the future (Cf. Lothar Rathmann,Alman Emperyalizminin Turkiye’ye Girisi, trans. Ragip Zarakolu, 2nd ed., Belge Yayinlari, 1992).
For its part, when in 1916 the Russian tsar took hold of eastern Anatolia, he decided to settle Cossacks in the region to replace surviving Armenians, which of course created great consternation among Armenian intellectuals.
Had there been no Soviet Revolution, Armenia would not have come into existence. Just as it would have been very difficult for a state like Turkey to come into being. It is not the slightest irony of history that it was the same revolution of 1917 and the new international balance of forces that it brought in its wake that made it possible for these two states, which do not recognize each other officially, to exist.
To sum up, if you look into the UN Genocide Convention, you are bound to see that all the fundamental elements find their place in the Armenian case. The policies of the CUP, on the other hand, were reminiscent of those of a proto-fascist party. In other words, this was a case of fascismavant la lettre. Precisely in the same way as the de facto occurrence of genocide in 1915, even before the concept ''genocide'' itself had come into circulation.
The end result is that the Anatolian region has lost its Armenian sons and daughters. The ethnic cleansing operation later reached out towards the eradication of historic buildings and even cemeteries. How could a people that did not exist, that even left no trace behind it, reclaim its rights?
In the final analysis, the material basis for the exercise of the right to self-determination for the Armenian people was destroyed. It was not for nothing that Hitler, on the eve of the attack on Poland in 1939, asked at a meeting the question, ''Who remembers the Armenian people nowadays?''