« Why Do We Have a Children's Day, Really? | Main | A More Radical Government? ... Not Really »
April 30, 2009
Turks and 'Meds Yeghern'
[Originally published in Hürriyet Daily News]
Quite a few people in Turkey are upset with President Barack Obama these days for using the term "Meds Yeghern" to describe the tragedy that befell on Ottoman Armenians in 1915. The term means "Great Catastrophe" in the Armenian language and it refers to the "genocide" of 1915. Some Turkish commentators unhappily argue that although Obama did not directly use the "G" word, he said what amounts to that.
I, on the other hand, saw a reasonable nuance in Obama's rhetoric. If he had used the "G" word, that would have amounted to a legal definition. Yet his choice of words shows that he didn't want to take that step. It rather indicates that he sees the tragedy of 1915 in a way totally different than the common Turkish view, but does not wish to enforce that by bringing up a legal definition that would make Turkey politically uncomfortable.
Obama's stance
And I think that this stance by Obama should be welcomed. His rhetoric is true to itself (because we know that Obama sees 1915 as genocide), but is also considerate to the Turkish position. What more should we expect from the American President? To deny or overlook something which he sees as a bitter historical fact? This question brings me to the other side of the issue. Most Turks, too, see a different historical fact when they look at 1915. Or, perhaps, 1917.
The latter was the year when Armenian militants committed mass atrocities in Eastern Turkey on the Muslim population to take "revenge" for what happened two years earlier. Every Turk is told about those horrific episodes, in which men, women and children were brutally tortured and slaughtered. When you mention a "great catastrophe" that took place during World War I, Turks remember this Muslim tragedy, not the Armenian one.
The reason is obvious: Every society remembers the evils done to them, rather than the evils they do. Turkish society is especially prone to thinking this way, because it hardly has a taste for self-criticism. Therefore it would be wrong to blame Turkish society for "denying" the Armenians' Meds Yeghern. You deny something when you know it is true, but you don't want to openly accept it for other, mostly selfish, reasons. Most Turks don't do that, because they genuinely believe there was no Armenian genocide, and whatever happened was some form of collective vendetta during the years of war and conflict.
What needs to be done in this whole debate is to help Turks understand the pain of the Armenians, and help the rest of the world understand the pain of Turks. There are two opposite narratives on both sides, and both sides need to take steps in order to discover the narrative that it does not know.
The Turkish narrative starts not in 1915, but 1878, when the Ottoman Empire lost a great deal of its Balkan territories to newly created nation-states such as Serbia and Bulgaria. These Russian-supported Slavic nations continued to push forward, and the empire continued to shrink gradually. The big loss came during the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, when the empire lots all of its Balkan territories except Eastern Thrace, which continues to be the western edge of modern Turkey.
In all these lost lands the Muslim population was subject to horrific campaigns of ethnic cleansing. Many were killed. Others fled to Turkey proper telling the horrible stories of the "Christian onslaught against the Muslims."
When Armenian nationalists started their agitations in order to terrorize the Empire and to force the intervention of Western powers, many Muslims perceived this as yet another repetition of a nightmare that they had seen before: The terror would continue until an independent Armenia could be formed and all Muslim populations ethnically cleansed. Fear was the main motivating factor in the "pre-emptive" expulsion and the massacres.
War and Death
In his book on "The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922," historian Justin McCarthy says the following:
"In 1895 in Anatolia and in 1905 in the Caucasus, inter-communal warfare broke out. Prior to that time, Muslims and Armenians had supported either the Russian or the Ottoman Empires. Now the Muslims and Armenians had set about killing each other in their villages and cities. This war was not a thing of armies, but of peoples. It had been building for almost a century, brought about by Russian invasion, Armenian nationalism, and Ottoman weakness. By 1910, the polarization that was soon to result in mutual disaster was probably inevitable. Blood had been shed and revenge was expected and desired. Whatever their individual intentions, Muslims knew they were at risk from the Armenians, and Armenians knew they were at risk from the Muslims. Once World War I began, each side naturally assumed the worst of the other, and acted accordingly."
Let me note: This does not justify the Meds Yeghern. It just tells us that there is a Turkish side of the story, too. And the best way to make Turks more empathetic to the Armenian side of the story is to take theirs seriously as well.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at April 30, 2009 12:44 PM
All nations act according to national interests. It would not be in Turkeys best interests to bow to international pressure. Especially when the countries that make the claim of genocide havent encouraged research on the matter. I grew up in the west and know that the christian world still has a major problem with Turkey because it is Muslim. the only reason that we are allowed to be considered as allies is because we are the most powerful player in our region. That said we are still not recognized as equals. I will give you a few examples. firstly if we had of instigated a military take over of Cyprus as the Greek junta did do you honestly believe that the western world would have assisted us as they have assisted Greece or blamed Greece for going in and establishing security and stability there. they would have given Greece assistance and backing. When Saddam threatened to strike turkey, we asked our NATO allies to assist in the defense of our border. It took a lot of pressure and complaints from our politicians before anyone finally agreed to assist and it was only Germany who assisted with some patriot missile batteries. Do you believe that if it were Germany that was under threat that they would have encountered the resistance for help from its NATO allies as we did. I think not. Do you honestly believe that American soldiers would have treated Spanish soldiers the way they treated Turkish soldiers in northern Iraq (Putting hoods over our soldiers heads and then detaining them in prison camps like guantanomo). Why does America and Europe not complain about the very well documented atrocities committed in Azerbaijan by the Armenians, and the continuing atrocities committed by Israel in Palestine. Instead they either ignore the evidence or as in Israels case they try and stop the UN in trying to establish what war crimes were committed. We dont deny what happened back in 1915 we just see it and tell it for what it was. A ethnic minority, used by external powers to assist in the dismemberment of the ottoman empire. It was not the first time that the Armenians had sided with the enemy and the Armenians had made their intentions clear before the Russians invaded. If you and i know this then believe me the countries that aledge that turkey committed genocide know the truth. So you have to wonder what is their motives for pursuing these insulting and unconstructive allegations. I dont suggest that we alienate ourselves from our western allies. We need to be more forceful and show that we will not tolerate discrimination, lies and double standards. Firstly we need to establish through historical records in the relevant archives what had happened and then put our foot down and reprimand any nation that persists in discriminating against us. We need to unite as a nation and only through a strong efficient democracy where the opposition parties focus on building the nation with the government, and not tie up the government with slander and ideology for personal political gain. Turkey needs to be insistent on what it expects from its allies/friends. Above all turkey needs to be substantially stronger than it is today. then you will see how the western nations will be obliging to us as opposed to being obliging to small insignificant back waters like Greek Cyprus and Armenia.
Posted by: kenan at April 30, 2009 4:31 PM
As always, I can count on THE WHITE PATH to be level headed on even the most sensitive of issues. You should be required reading for politicians everywhere. Considering our blunders in treating many peoples from Native Americans to the Slave Trade to our incompetent occupation of Iraq, the USA should be very slow to comment on tragedies that happened almost a hundred years ago. Thanks Mustafa
Regards, Mike
Posted by: Michael Lance Barrett at May 1, 2009 5:15 PM
In trying to please everyone, Obama pleased no one. Armenians too angered by what they see as a betrayal of a campaign promise. The American-Armenians, who supported him in large numbers in the last election, are threatening to stay home next time. For my part, I think using this word solves absolutely nothing. Meds Yeghern is the name Armenians give to the events of 1915, like the Jews call the Holocost the Shoah. The question Obama was asked is if these events constituted genocide. Obama skid around the issue and said nothing but platitudes.
What is more intriguing is the idea that the wording he chose was a part of a gain bargain between him, Turkey and Armenia over the content of the agreement signed the night before, on April 23.
This is best summarised in this article, from an Armenian paper:
http://www.asbarez.info/2009/05/02/obama-said-to-have-used-genocide-to-bargain/
To summarize : The article states that Obama threatened to use the word genocide unless an agreement was reached. There are problem with their story though. It says the US was the mediator, but all other report I read state it was Switzerland. But mostly, I canât think of a good reason why the US would want a peace deal between Armenia and Turkey. Tensions are an opportunity (or a pretext) to intervene, and the US can play both sides to get concessions.
We still donât know the actual content of the road map, and that makes it hard to evaluate the veracity of this piece. We will know better when it is.
Sidenotes :
Former pope, John Paul II used the same word when he visited the Genocide memorial in 2001.
The expression Meds Yeghern can also be used in Armenian to described the Death of Jesus.
Finally, you really should stop using Justin McCartyâs writing, or at least not without weighing his words. He is simply not taken seriously outside of Turkey.
Posted by: Taken at May 6, 2009 9:42 PM
Last Tough :
Bush also used the words "Great Calamity" in his address of April 24 2005. That said, Obamaâs address beats the hell out of Bushâs which for some reason includes a reference to Iraq. For Bush, everything was apparently about Iraq.
This statement also contains an obscure reference to an analysis by the International Center for Transitional Justice. Most Turks seem not to be aware of this analysis, so Iâll fill you in. In 2001, Bush set up a Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission. Armenians were extremely critical and sceptical of it, but some members were found to participate. The commission asked a group called International Center for Transitional Justice( ICTJ ) to determine if the events constituted genocide. (Is this the Joint Study Erdogan keeps asking for?)
ICTJ studied the question and made a report, available here :
http://www.ictj.org/images/content/7/5/759.pdf
Basically, the IJTJ found that there really was a genocide. The relevant conclusions are on pages 14-15 and 18.
Back to Bush, so in his April 24 address, he mentiones the ICTJ report and its conclusion, but then states that this report âdid not provide the final wordâ. In effect, Bush used his 24 april address⦠for genocide denial.
Posted by: Taken at May 6, 2009 10:23 PM
to taken
"I can't think of a good reason why the US would want a peace deal between Armenia and Turkey."
I believe America wants to resolve this issue for 3 reasons. firstly to undermine Russian influence in the region (partly punishment for what it did in Georgia) to take away Russia's strongest diplomatic weapon oil politics. secondly the newly independent central Asian Turkic nations will be the new oil producers replacing S Arabia. and America knows that if turkey doesnt become the dominant influence in that region it will be either Russia or China. neither option is palatable for the west and the only way to ensure that we have the dominant influence is to create a secure and unobstructed corridor through the that region. Turkey with its better quality manufactured goods and expertise in construction and many other areas would provide a more suitable option for these new republics. we have stronger cultural ties and could present them with the Turkish perspective of Islam as opposed to the afghan/Pakistan perspective. thirdly America has noticed that within the secular establishment of turkey there is dissent and some resentment towards the west for failing to see us as equal and also resentment for not proping up the corrupt system the west maintained and encouraged in Turkey previously, and some advocate moving into the Russian camp and away from NATO. It is also aware that Erdogan is not bowing to each and every request that is presented (whether in our best interests or not) as has been the case in the past. turkey is negotiating with a new found awareness of its own power and importance in its region. (something i have never seen before) America is aware of the consequences of the west neglecting turkeys desires, aspirations and importance. Turkey is on the rise, with or without the west. while Europe focuses on winning votes at the expense of Turkey it is loosing Turkey, as can be explained by the growing amount of Turks that would rather not join the EU. this scares the think tanks in America. so Obama wants to give turkey a new feeling of being important. reality is The west has no choice but to keep Turkey in their camp. To alienate turkey would put the west into an position it dreads, potentially the clash of civilizations and the loss of the balance of global power. not to mention the perception within the Muslim world. unfortunately politicians like Sarkozy and Merkel are more worried about their next election than the long term good of their respective nations. Remember we have the sixth largest militay in the world. We are the second largest in NATO. We are still to date the only nation in the world that has defeated a guerrilla army. We manufacture 45% of our military requirements indigenously and that figure is growing, with huge potential to sell that hardware internationally. As a result the spin off of technology that is eagerly awaited in our ever growing industrial sector will keep our young brains employed at home. We hold a unique ability to trade with both the west and the Islamic world. Remember it wasnt America who initiated this reproachment, it was Turkey and Armenia. America jumped on board well after the process of reproachment had begun, and lastly Erdogan's popularity in the Muslim world has undeniably grown to a point where America has found in Erdogan a leader who's popularity and respect has grow dramaticly in the last 5 years.
Posted by: kenan at May 8, 2009 1:01 PM
Great article! This is a rare example of the kind of thinking which
makes me believe that reconciliation between Turks and Armenians will one day be possible. The description of the Turkish point of view is completely legitimate and has to be understood by everyone concerned. But it's important to keep in mind that from the Armenian perspective, they were in no way responsible for the treatment of Muslims in the Balkans. And the undeniable fact is that it was the Ottomans who initiated hostilities in 1914 by invading Russia, not the other way around.
Posted by: John Myhill at May 9, 2009 10:05 AM
Kenan :
I generally agree with your analysis, yet except for point one, I donât see this pushing for reconciliation. Quite the contrary, if America aims to curry favor with Turkey, and especially with its secular establishment, why press against Turkeyâs will on an issue they feel so strongly against. Would they not better achieve this result by siding with Turkey and Azerbaijan against Armenia?
It obvious that Turkey and the United States would both benefit from a corridor linking Turkey with central Asia. But it would be must easier to create it militarily; perhaps by seizing Zangezur (the fear that this would happen was a major driver of the Karabagh war). A pipeline from Iran passes through this province, and since the economy of Armenia is centered on the Georgia-Iran corridor, seizing it would deal a fatal blow to Armenia.
Most Armenians believe that the rapprochement was done under pressure from Bush, and later Obama, (who threatened to use the word genocide), but we will never know for sure.
Mustafa Akyol : can I edit my previous pasts for typos.
Posted by: Taken at May 10, 2009 12:43 AM
To Taken
War is not an option for Turkey. It wouldn't be Turkey attacking it would be Azerbaijan. America would give the Azeri's the resources (covertly) to do it. If Turkey were to invade Armenia as you suggest as the easiest option Turkey would suffer diplomatically and economically. You could forget about joining the EU for as long as Turkey occupies Armenian soil. Turkey would find it hard to purchase vital military hardware and technology. It would put Russia on the offensive and Iran would feel even more threatened. So the only practical way is by useing soft political power and economic incentives. If the border was opened Armenia would effectively be a colony of ours, because any wealth that they create will be through and dependant on turkey and once they have a reasonably decent income they will be very reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. I believe that if Armenia fail to take this current opportunity. America will not obstruct Azerbaijan from doing what you suggested. America will complain and make it look like they disapprove but they will actually be in favor of it. Remember that Armenia and Azerbaijan only have a cease fire stopping a war not a formal agreement. It wouldn't take much to begin hostilities again and Azerbaijan has been useing its new found oil wealth to purchase vital military equipment to take back its lands that are occupied by Armenia. Always remember when you talk war in that region, always remember to put Russia into your calculations. This is why i believe that Turkey wouldnt even consider a need to attack Armenia
Posted by: kenan at May 18, 2009 3:50 AM
I agree with Kenan on this point.
However, Russian forces are on the Armenian-Turkish border and their standing is problematic.There are reports that they may already be guarding the occupied Azeri territory, not just the NK.
The Armenian energy, telecommunications,minerals and partly the agriculture is under Russian control or direct ownership, so Armenians do not necessarily own their own country's resources.
The trick is if the Azeris can get the Russians to play nice in case of attack by promising them more than what they already have.
Only when they go along with this, can any Azeri offensive begin.What is the world going to do then? Are they going to not buy Azeri oil when it has become so co-mingled? Obviously if Europe needed Russian oil so much this winter, they will still need oher sources of oil, so taking back your own country will not be seen as too much of a "violation".
This is the reason that some Armenians are advocating that those occupied territories be settled as soon as possible.They know that there will be a war in the next 3 years, if not sooner.
In the last 12 years or so, Azeri society has become extremely radicalized because the West has not held the Armenians accountable for their actions.
When the price to pay for taking back their own land is less than what they are they are willing to pay, they will strike and this time, the Armenian diaspora will have no one who will back them up.
The diaspora should wisen up, because their games have reached a point of dimishing returns.
It will be either their "genocide" or the existence of Armenia. They should view Turkey as a savior of their country, not as an enemy.
Posted by: neni1955 at May 22, 2009 9:00 PM