I listened to this talk with interest and was relieved that there now exists a trend in Turkish life willing to challenge Turkish national mythology and ideology, which, as you say, fosters a debilitating paranoia and neuroses that prevent Turkey from being a normal country and, in my view, mean Turkey continues to pose a serious threat to its neighbours.
However, Mustafa, while you are prepared to challenge some myths about Turkey, regrettably there are other myths I believe you are still wedded to. Unfortunately, you did not have enough time in your talk to fully reply to the former British diplomat who urged Turkey ‘to get over’ its denial of the Armenian genocide and suggested Turkish paranoia betrayed a lack of national self-confidence – an interesting observation given Turkey’s infamously overt nationalism.
I also believe that your article ‘What’s right with Turkey’ could have been written by the most hardline apparatchik at the Turkish Foreign Ministry, so completely does it buy and repeat the prevailing nationalist Turkish discourse, which depicts Turks as history’s eternal victims and Turkey’s actions as always virtuous in thought and deed. Thus you write that Turkey invaded Cyprus, ethnically cleansed 200,000 Greeks, killed 6,000 (mostly civilian) Greeks and occupied (for the last 33 years) 37 percent of the island, to protect the Turkish Cypriots from Greek Cypriot rapists and murderers. It is so sad that you think this.
I also note that while you refer to incidences of Extermination, Murder, Deportation and Persecution of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs as crimes against humanity, you describe the same acts committed by Turks against the Greeks of Smyrna as legitimate expressions of Turkish ‘rage’ and ‘vengeance’. How disappointing.

Thanks again Mustafa Akyol for such a brilliant talk. My suggestion is to Alexander. Alexander Turkey has a right to reject claims of genocide. Turkey does have issues with people who don't have self-confidence but this doesn't apply to all Turks. Like myself, accusing Turkey of genocide against the Armenians and Greeks as well is nothing more than an act of racism. Turkey and Turks reject these claims and why do you think the Armenians don't take Turkey to the UN or any other legal body for repatriations or compensation. That is because 'genocide' has a legal meaning which was first adopted in 1948 and cannot be applied retrospectively and the Armenians know very well they can never get recognition legally. The Armenians have tried for more than 90 years by using their clout to get recognition and have been appealing to the prejiduce against the Turks that is present in the Europeans.
Alexander Turkey has made Cyprus peaceful which ıs a far cry from prior to 1974 which was the seen of some very ugly events perpetrated by the Greek side.
So next time Alexander be more careful and check your facts before you start Turkish bashing and attempt racism.

Goksel
Personally, I don’t think it’s worth getting hung up on legalistic definitions of what constitutes genocide – though I think Mustafa in his talk equates the Armenian killings with those that took place in Rwanda, which is commonly accepted as a genocide.
The Armenian killings did take place; the question is whether late-Ottoman Turkish leaders – the Young Turks especially – believing that the empire’s decline was in part the fault of the so-called minorities, who they judged to be both rebellious/disloyal and holding too much economic sway, determined that a new (exclusively) Turkish nation-state had to physically rid itself of Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians, and came up with ideologies and plans to that end.

I accept that what happened to the Ottoman ‘minorities’ in the period 1914 to 1922 (to 1955, if we include the Istanbul pogrom) was not the result of a collective act of psychopathy similar to that which overcame the Germans from 1933 to 1945, but I do think it would be useful for Turks to ask themselves why non-Turks were turned on with such devastating consequences and to find out if remnants of the fanaticism of the period still exist today.
(I also think the cruelty shown to each other by all Ottoman subjects – Greeks, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, Slavs and so on – at the end of the empire is not a great advert for Ottoman civilisation. Why did the rulers and the ruled hate each other so much?)

As for Cyprus, I regret that you think the invasion brought peace to the island – thousands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots were killed, hundreds of thousands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots were made refugees, and so on. The term ‘peace of the graveyard’ comes to mind. As for the situation prior to the Turkish invasion in 1974, it is absurd (and another sign of the tendency of Turks to always see themselves as victims) to lay all the blame for the intercommunal disturbances at the door of Greek Cypriots. I would urge you also to consider the activities of the TMT, the pursuit by Turkish Cypriot nationalists of ‘Partition or Death’ and the ‘From Turk to Turk’ campaign, which put pressure on Turkish Cypriots to end all forms of cooperation and coexistence with Greek Cypriots, to physically separate themselves from Greek Cypriots and to set up a parallel state in preparation for partition. This is not to say that in Cyprus in the 1960s Greeks did not kill Turks; rather it is to say that Greeks killed Turks, Turks killed Greeks, Greeks killed Greeks and Turks killed Turks. An ugly situation indeed, but not one that justified the invasion of the island – particularly the second phase of the invasion, and its abhorrent consequences.
Finally, I’m sorry you think criticising Turkey amounts to racism against Turks. I’d encourage you to put aside this mindset.

Alexander contructive critism is always welcome, however the critism you offer is racially motivated. Turks are more than open to critism but find it annoying that they have to defend previous acts of alleged violence that supposedly occured years ago.
Your argument 'its worth getting hung up on legalistic definitions of what constitutes genocide' defies logic. There are set guidelines and laws set which clearly define genocide. However Armenian groups have not gone through these channels but have rather applied a campaign of deception and lies to get recognition for an crime that never occured. Yes, killings did occur against the local Armenian population at the time which has been acknowledged by the Turkish side. Furthermore, the Turkish government has even offered to open up a joint commitee to study the events of 1915-1918 to the Armenian government. But this offer has been rejected by the Armenian government which just goes to show how little confidence they have in their own cause.

As for Cyprus. I don't exactly agree with the Turkish government in the final outcome of Cyprus. Such as the removal of Greeks from Northern Cyprus hence therefore a new commision has been set up for victims of the war to recover lost property due to the 1974 invasion. However, the invasion was necessary to prevent further acts of violence and bloodshed.

Goksel
The legal definition of genocide is here
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

I think the events of 1915 fall under the classifications described. This article by the renowned British journalist Robert Fisk is rather scathing of continuing Turkish denials about the killings and is worth reading. Do you think Fisk has been taken in by Armenian ‘lies and deception’?
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk10162006.html

As for Cyprus, the Turkish invasion in 1974 did not prevent violence and bloodshed; it brought more violence and bloodshed to the island than it had ever known before.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that following the 15 July 1974 Athens coup against Makarios and the installation of the gangster Nikos Sampson as president, a Turkish intervention on the island was inevitable. However, after the 20 July invasion, Sampson and the junta in Athens fell; yet on 14 August Turkey went ahead with the second phase of the invasion, which violently partitioned Cyprus along ethnic lines.

Here’s a quote from the book, Cyprus: Hostage to History, by Christopher Hitchens, an even more renowned British journalist. He writes:

‘Supposing that one takes the most sympathetic view of the original Turkish intervention – that is was a necessary counterstroke to a Greek putsch – and suppose that one regards the Turkish minority as blameless in the disruption and brutalities of the 1960s. Suppose, further, that one ignores the long and tenacious attachment of the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot leadership to partition irrespective of the majority will… Put the case that there might have been – indeed would have been – murderous attacks on Turkish Cypriots en masse by a consolidated Sampson leadership. Put the case that the Cyprus problem is purely a case of the security of the Turkish Cypriots. Admit that the first Turkish intervention of 20 July 1974 did everybody a favour by demolishing the rule of Fascism in Greece and Cyprus. Agree and allow all this, and the second Turkish invasion becomes more reprehensible rather than less. By the time it took place, on 14 August 1974, the Greek irredentist forces had fallen from power in both Athens and Nicosia. Negotiations were underway, and relations between the communities on the island were stable if nervous. The pretext for the original invasion had ceased to exist, and if Mr Ecevit had withdrawn his forces he would have been remembered as the man who rid Greece of the junta, saved Cyprus from its designs, and rebuilt the image of Turkey in the West. The moral and actual pressure for a lasting and generous settlement with the Turkish Cypriots would have been irresistible. Instead Mr Ecevit and his generals embarked on a policy of conquest and annexation.’

As for the property commission you refer to, it is a gimmick designed to impress the European courts and not meant to offer restitution or justice to the 200,000 Greeks forced from their homes by the Turkish army.

Alexander,

İ have already explained to you that the definition of genocide cannot be applied retrospectively. But if you were to apply it retrospectively the events of 1915 don't qualify as genocide. Genocide involves the intent and motive. The burden of proof is on the Armenian side and they have consistently failed to prove otherwise. The Turkish government does acknowledge that killings of Armenians did occur. But this wasn't one-sided as the Armenians would like everyone to believe. But rather involved also the tragic loss of life of both the Turks and Kurds.

The forced removal of Armenians did occur but this isn't disputed. But did the forced removal of Armenians constitute genocide. No. Forcibly removing a population to prevent that group siding with the enemy is perfectly legal. This is not different to what the US and UK did previously. İn fact the Ottoman Empire gave each family compensation for loss of property. But the Armenians did form gangs and killing squads to kill Turks and Kurds. The Ottoman government had every right to respond which they did. Sometimes more than they should have which is acknowleged. Those forces were punished by the courts and some even hanged.

As for Robert Fisk, he has taken one side which İ don't agree with but he is entitled to his opinion. But you have neglected other historians and scholars such as Professor Mc Carthy which dispute Armenian claims of genocide.

As for Cyprus I disagree with you completely. The invasion was necessary to prevent further acts of violence and bloodshed. You have failed to acknowledge that the previous 14 years prior to 1974 was a time of war and bloodshed for the Turkish Cypriots. So what confidence do you think the Turkish Cypriots have in living with the Greek Cypriots? None.

As for the legal mechanism to deal with property loss. The courts where established to allow for the Greek Cypriots to recover lost property. You may disagree with the outcome of some of the cases but this hardly qualifies as a gimmick to impress the European courts.

Goksel
Why can’t definitions of genocide be applied retrospectively? Surely, we are entitled to look at events whenever they occurred and describe them as accurately as we can. Why does the passage of time preclude us from defining the Armenian killings as genocide?

You define genocide as involving intent and motive. You say no such intent and motive can be proved in the case of the Armenian genocide; yet you go on to admit that forced removals and killings did take place and even admit intent and motive – to prevent Armenians ‘siding with the enemy’.
‘Forcibly removing a population to prevent that group siding with the enemy is perfectly legal,’ you say.
(An extraordinary claim, which I hope only a very small minority in Turkey believe).

Can you be more specific in your claim that the UK and the US have carried out killings and deportations similar to those carried out by Ottoman Turkey against its Armenian population? When and where? If you can identify US and UK-instigated Armenian-type genocides, does there exist in Britain and America similarly hysterical and concerted campaigns to deny misdemeanors or is there open debate, admissions of guilt and a willingness to learn from the past?

Justin McCarthy is an apologist for the Turkish state. Unlike Fisk and Hitchens, he is not independent and his views lack credibility. McCarthy’s views on the Armenian genocide are as reliable as David Irving’s on the Jewish Holocaust. Are there any independent scholars and historians you know of who deny the Armenian genocide?

Just like the terrible fate of ethnic Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia at the end of the Second World War cannot negate the crime of the Jewish Holocaust, so Turkish suffering in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire cannot negate the Armenian genocide. Indeed, it really won’t do – whether in the case of the Armenian genocide or in the case of the invasion and occupation of Cyprus – to keep on insisting that it was Turks who were the real victims of these terrible events and allow this victim mentality to permit you to justify or blind you to Turkish wrongdoing.

To be honest, Goksel, I’m not that interested in debating whether or not the Armenian genocide took place. In fact, I find continuing Turkish denials rather absurd. As the British diplomat said to Mustafa in his talk, I think you should just ‘get over it’. What interests – and disappoints me – in relation to the Armenian genocide and Turkey’s policies in Cyprus – is that no matter what evidence and arguments are presented contradicting the prevailing myths of the Turkish state, it appears that a vast majority of Turks remain utterly devoted to those myths – myths, which to many outsiders are not only ridiculous but dangerous.

The Speech at the CFR and especially the resulting questions have brought the argument back on the treatment of minorities - Greeks, Armenians and Jews. As the former British diplomat to Turkey noted during the q&a session, in terms of the number of people represented by them it is less than 1% of the population and those that remain are reasonable well cared for.
True enough.

However, attitudes of Turks about the non-Turks in their midst is the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" and the real test in terms of how much real democracy there is in Turkey and how much Turkish people are able to be self-critical. The picture in this area is not very encouraging at all.

Mr Akyol started his talk by ridiculing the anti-semitic books put out by the secularist nationalists. Of course such anti-semitism had been put out by Islamic circles and Islamic preachers for a long time. How sad is it that we can now find all spectra of society having joined and finally reached consensus on this.

Of course the Armenian issue has already been commented on here. There are basically only two things at work here : 1) the inability to be self-critical and 2) the simple inability to read one's archive material because the alphabet is changed.

Mr Akyol in defense of his position on this issue appealed to the authority of his grandmother who declared that "all sides have suffered". I suppose that should now settle it. He also mentioned that telegrams were sent to treat the Armenians fairly and give them bread and so forth. Of course, the Mazhar Inquiry Commission revealed the following :

"On November 21, 1918, in the same senate, the most remarkable revelation was made by another senator, Resid Akif. This man was an Ottoman statesman, and on that day he made this declaration. He said, "I was a member of the first postwar Ottoman government, and one day in my office, I came across two types of documents. One was the official order of the interior ministry, Talaat, ordering the deportation of the Armenians, in which - and the Turks are using these secret telegrams now - in which Talaat is telling his subordinates, "Protect the Armenian deportee convoys. Give them olives and bread." Et cetera, et cetera.

But parallel to this, an informal order goes out from Constantinople, issued not by any government agency but what sociologists call "informal authority," namely the Central Committee of the Ittihad party, i.e. CUP. He says "The order was simple. As soon as the Armenian convoys leave their villages and towns and cities, proceed with the execution of the mission," and Akif Pasha says the mission was for these criminals to attack the convoys and massacre the population. This is the testimony of Akif Pasha, a high-ranking and distinguished Ottoman statesman.

Source : The Armenian Genocide: Prof Vahakn Dadrian's Lecture at Harvard

Finally, I note that Mr Akyol also mentioned the brutal murder of three missionaries in Malatya this past April. As a Turkish-Christian myself I would be feeling very victimised if I were living in Turkey under the current state of affairs. I really don't understand how his brand of "conservatism" which he puts in some kind of contrast to "islamism" is supposed to give people like me any comfort. What does he think of Islamic injunctions that apostates are to be killed ? Or does his "liberalism" trump his Islam at that point ?

Alexander

İt is understood that you have failed to understand my previous opinion İ posted.

Firstly genocide recognition cannot be applied retrospectively. İt isn't up to me to explain why it cannot be applied retrospectively but in my opinion İ think it is their to allow for consistency. İf you try and apply genocide retrospectively you can turn the law into a joke.

As İ mentioned previously the burden is on the Armenian side to prove genocide but they have failed miserably. Yes İ did admit the Ottoman Empire did forcibly remove the Armenian population. But the Ottoman Empire was at war with the Russian Empire on the Eastern front and the Armenians were collaborating with them. So therefore forcibly removing the Armenian population is perfectly legal. But İ must stress the importance of 'time of war'. So please in future do not take my words out of context and give the impression İ support the forcible removal of a population.

Yes forcible removal of populations in time of war did occur. The US removed the Japanese population from US soil after 1941 and the UK removed the German population from UK soil after 1914. But you never hear of these events. Why is that? İs it because they are Western White but yet the Turks are not that the campaign to get recognition for genocide has gained fertile ground.

Can İ also add that the UK occupied Turkey after 1918 and investigated the alleged Armenian genocide. The accussed where transferred to the island of Malta. The final result was the acquital of the accused generals involved. The British had a perfect oppurtunity to prove these allegations yet by their own courts couldn't prove these allegations.

You might not be interested in recognition of the alleged Armenian Genocide but as a Turk myself İ am very interested in making sure that this allegation never makes the light of day. İ and many other Turks will not be subjected to racially motivated crimes. Yes İ agree with you there are nutty Turks out their but this exists in every population and we the Turks have every right to reject slanderous and racially motivated Genocide allegations.

Goksel
I understand perfectly what you say and thank you for your comments because I believe them to be typical of Turkish society and thinking and they illustrate so well how far away Turkey is from being a normal country.

It was you who said that genocide claims can’t be applied retrospectively, so I’m afraid it is up to you to explain and justify this absurd position.
I said I wasn’t interested in discussing the factuality or otherwise of the Armenian genocide. The Armenian Holocaust is incontrovertible, as incontrovertible as the Jewish Holocaust; so, to be clear, what I’m not interested in is indulging the outlandish arguments that seek to disprove what, for any rational person, is beyond dispute. Indeed, for a country so worried about its image – the way it sees itself and the way it presents itself to the outside world – it should be obvious that it is much more damaging to Turkey’s image to deny the Armenian genocide than it is to accept the horrors of its past. Don’t you know how badly it reflects on Turkey to keep up with these sordid attempts to justify or deny mass murder?

Also, don’t you know how ridiculous it makes Turkey look when you compare the treatment by Turkey of the Armenians during World War One with the treatment of the Japanese Americans in the Second World War? How can you possibly compare the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans – an event, by the way, for which the US government has subsequently apologised and paid compensation and which is openly acknowledged and discussed by US society – with the horrifying massacre of 1.5 million Armenians?

My point about the Armenian genocide is this: what do these absurd Turkish attempts to deny the truth tell us about Turkey? And, unfortunately, depressingly, it tells us that Turkey is a deeply unhealthy society, with a national ideology suffused with paranoia and hysteria producing a conformist citizenry that accepts too willingly the strictures and myths put forward by the Turkish state. The kind of perversion of history and facts which Turkey’s genocide denials reflect is only normally found in totalitarian dictatorships and Turkey, indeed, in so many ways, displays more the hallmarks of a totalitarian dictatorship than a democratic society.

Finally, if the Armenians have ‘failed so miserably’, as you put it, to prove the genocide, then why is Turkey so traumatised by their claims and why are so many parliaments recognising the events of 1915 for what they are? Are you seriously saying that the world is under the thumb of these heinous Armenians who possess such fantastic resources and skills that they are able to persuade the gullible French, Americans (40 of the 50 states recognise the Armenian genocide), Italians, Canadians, Swiss, etc, etc, to join in their anti-Turkish crusade? Turkey is a huge and powerful country, strategically and economically vital to global interests. Why is it so incapable of overcoming this Armenian world conspiracy if, as you say, Armenian claims are nothing but lies and deceit?

Alexander,

As a Turk İ have every right to reject allegations of genocide made against Turkey. You have failed to understand the concept of genocide. İt isn't up to me to explain why it can't be applied retrospectively. My suggestion to you is to live with it and read the law of genocide again.

The Armenian genocide is not an incontrovertible truth. The Armenians just like yourself have failed miserably to prove genocide. The burden is on the Armenian side to prove genocide not the Turkish side. The Turkish government has even offered to Armenia a joint study to study the events of 1915-1918. However the Armenian government has rejected this offer. This is due to their inability and lack of self-confidence in proving their case.

İ am interested to a point in discussing the allegations. However like yourself and many Armenians İ do not let these baseless allegations consume my life. The recognition of this allegation is racially motivated. İt has no and never will have factual basis. As for many of those countries and states recognising genocide. That is due to the failure of the Turkish state in explaining its position and the success of the Armenians in firstly stiring up racial hatred and using its financial clout to present its arguments.

Recognition of this genocide has nothing to do with justice and moving on. Every state has a right to self-defense and like it or not this involves force which may also result in the death of citizens. İ have explained previously many Armenians died tragically which has been acknowledged.

But this wasn't one sided as the Armenians and yourself like to believe. The Ottoman Empire was in a struggle for survival. The local Armenians sided with the Russians and were rightly punished. Compesation was paid to the Armenians as they were forcibly removed. Turkey doesn't and will never apologise for a genocide that never occured. Unfortunately the Armenians contributed to their own fate by commiting criminal acts.

Alexander you can go and on how genocide did occur. I do understand your position. You believe that the Ottoman Empire did commit genocide due to your racial hatred of the Turks. However, İ hope that you do overcome your racist attitudes against the Turks and actually visit Turkey one day and see for yourself what a great country Turkey is. Your potrayal of Turkey as a dictatorship rather than a democratic one shows that you do have a sense of humour and may actually overcome your baseless and sometimes fanatical approach to allegations of genocide.

Alexander,
your assumption that the Greek side is completely innocent is no different than Turkey's claim of total innocence-only in the fact that Turkey's innocence is more profound. With the establishment of an independent Cyprus, Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots viewed the "taksim/enosis" argument solved. The Greek, side however, persisted in the "enosis" agitation despite its illegality by 1960 international accords. To this end, a premeditated plan was than devised by the Greek side (Akritas plan) to achieve this illegality. When the Turkish Cypriots refused to bow to illegality and injustice, the Greek side commenced massacres. In 1974, Turkey simply responded using the rights of the 1960 treaties. In other words, Turkey's action was a legal reaction to Greek illegality and massacres. Alaxander, it is you and those who think like you that need a thorough reviewing. It seems beyond you to ask yourself whether it is acceptable to violate international agreements to which you were a signatory of. You don't seem to consider the consequences/impacts such an action would entail. Imagine if you lived a everyday life through constant deceit and promise-breaking. You must be an unreliable person! The fact that Greeks cant't ask these simple questions suggests it is they who are the ones with insecurity. The best action is to accept these realities. You can start overcoming your insecurities by allowing Macedonia to call herself whatever she chooses, and allow minorities in Greece to publicly express their identity . Recognizing the TRNC would be nice also!