Turkey denies again

by Cliopatria

I was very sorry to read this article in the morning's LA Times: Turkish Court Cancels Meeting to Discuss Armenian Massacre.

A court Thursday ordered the cancellation of a conference where Turkish academics were expected to challenge the official version of the events surrounding the mass deaths among this nation's Armenians during and after World War I.

For almost a century, the Turkish government has denied that more than a million Armenians were victims of a systematic genocide between 1915-1922. But the wall of denial has shown recent signs of cracking. Famed Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk is quoted by the Times as recently saying "1 million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in these lands but no one but me dares say so." For his candor, Pamuk was arrested and charged with "insulting Turkey's national dignity."

Turkish ultra-nationalists are unwilling to allow discussion of the Armenian Genocide, even when silencing that discussion seems very likely to threaten Turkey's case for admission to the European Union. It's a bit difficult, after all, to imagine admitting a country that jails authors for "insulting national dignity" into the same union that includes the great liberal and tolerant democracies of Western Europe. But even though a growing number of Turks seem eager to confront the past and openly discuss what was done to more than a million of their neighbors, powerful elements in the country are willing to jeopardize EU membership in order to maintain the fiction of national innocence.

I have a particular concern for this issue because I teach at Pasadena City College, where perhaps 20% of the student body is of Armenian descent. The larger Glendale-Pasadena area of Los Angeles has the largest concentration of Armenians in the Western Hemisphere, and they play a vital role in local politics and public life. Years ago, when I first began teaching my Modern Europe courses at PCC, I never mentioned the Armenian Genocide during my lectures on the First World War. One after another, semester after semester, Armenian-American students asked me to begin to cover it. At first I resisted, with the excuse that the tragedy didn't technically take place in Europe. But I began to read more and more material in response to their requests, and became convinced that for both moral and historical reasons, the narrative of what happened in 1915 had to be included.

True confession: what really pushed me "over the top" was something less laudatory: in early 1997, I briefly dated a young Armenian-American woman who asked if I ever taught the subject of the genocide in my classes. When I said "no", she lectured me over sushi for half an hour. Her charm and her passion helped push me along considerably! (This was before the moment, mind you, when she told me that our "relationship" wouldn't go anywhere because she could only be "serious" about an Armenian fellow.)

In the years since I began regularly including a segment on the Armenian Genocide (just as I include a segment on the Holocaust), I've had dozens of students come up to me and thank me, often with tears in their eyes, for giving legitimacy to a story they've heard over and over again from their parents and grandparents. I hear the same refrain each time: "We've never heard this from someone who wasn't Armenian. Thank you for noticing, thank you for recognizing that this is important enough to teach." I'll admit that the gratitude of these students is a considerable encouragement to continue to lecture on the subject, and it has spurred me to expand the amount of time I devote to it.

My father, a Viennese-born war refugee, has received several thousand dollars in compensation over the years from the Austrian government. Austria and Germany have each accepted responsibility for the destruction of so many millions of Jews. Compensation, however inadequate, has been paid; the truth has been acknowledged; profound remorse has been expressed. I know how important this is. That sense of remorse on the part of the government is one of the things that allows my family to have such generally warm feelings about Austria and Austrians, despite what happened in the 1930s and 40s. But my Armenian friends have received nothing from Turkey. No compensation, no remorse, no acknowledgment that what was done to their ancestors was real and inexcusable. I had hoped, especially after Pamuk's brave declaration, that Turkey might be ready to face the truth. I had hoped that if nothing else, the carrot of European integration might be sufficient cause to rethink the policy of denial that has characterized the Turkish response for generations. Yesterday's court decision suggests that I -- and others -- have been too optimistic.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 9/24/2005

Chris, Your position may make sense to you, but I don't see how using words like "refugee" and "genocide" as they are defined in the dictionary, even if they don't conform to the definitions in international law, can be construed as threats to either international justice or the world order. Nobody here argues that they should not be clearly and carefully defined in international agreements, but your tirades about other uses (even when they conform to commonly accepted useage) seem pedantic and tedious.

chris l pettit - 9/24/2005

so that I cannot be accused of targeting any particular side of this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hurricanes2005/story/0,16546,1577415,00.html

the use of ethnic cleansing is totally emotive and inappropriate at this point...

And yes, Dr. Dresner, I do insist on and defend consistency when it comes to peace studies and universal human rights. Order is much different than consistency. There was order under some of the most repressive regimes in history...however there was not peace or any semblence of law...just a power dominated olitical apparatus, very similar to what we have now in this country. If you do not want to be consistant, you cannot then complain about anything as being violative of rights or against some sort of law because, as soon as you cease to be universal and consistent, law and rights necessarily disappear and only ideology remains.

CP

Jonathan Dresner - 9/24/2005

...know that there is a difference between analytical clarity and presentism.

Our job as historians is to teach events, processes, logic (historical, not formal) and communication.

Given, as Mr. Pettit notes, the not-uncommon conflict between peace and order, it seems odd that he so stridently insists on both.

Hugo Schwyzer - 9/23/2005

Thanks for the clarification, Chris. I feel as if I've wandered into a discussion with a lot of history, and one about which I am ignorant.

chris l pettit - 9/23/2005

When I said that history cannot be taught objectively, what I meant was that you can utilize "genocide" in your own ideological manner, can teach the facts of what happened and leave the class to apply their own (usually flawed) ideological standards to the facts and draw their own conclusions, or you can teach the facts of what happened and then show why, in a universal human rights law sense, the actions and facts can be shown to be genocide under that universal standard. I would submit that historians worth their PhDs would lean toward the third option since the first two necessarily involve ideologies that do not do anything to help the world or the rule of law (if peace and harmonious existence is actually what we are working for as a human race...if not, lets through law, rights and reason out the window and simply admit that it is survival of the fittest and we cannot argue against any action outside of our own narrowminded ideology).

CP

chris l pettit - 9/23/2005

H-

That comment was not aimed at you in any way whatsoever. If you took it that, way, I am sorry, but it was a misperception. If you look closely, I never said that you took any of those stances, nor did I imply that you did. I am more than willing to say mea culpa if there is anyone who also misperceived the comments to be aimed at you. I know you were the author of the post, but I was speaking towards the big picture. I would not state that you had those beliefs unless I knew that you did.

Now, when it comes to your second paragraph...you must realize the universal nature of history, and even the course you are teaching. To claim that your course only concentrates on one particular region or time period is to dodge the point. If you are to be consistent, it should matter not what you are teaching, rather, consistency in applying terms with ramifications should be the goal so as to avoid contradictory positions which logically cause credibility to be called into question.

As I noted, I completely agree with you about Turkey and share your feelings towards the situation. However, I do so in a manner that is consistent and impartial...something that cannot be said about several historians on Clio. For instance, if you were to write a post defending Israeli "security" actions, you would be guilty of the contradictions of which I speak and would simply be applying a word with definite meaning and consequences to only those situations that fit your ideological framework. There are scholars who do such a thing...thereby misusing s concept that they obviously either have little familiarity with, or want to use for their own devices. Dr. Luker made a statement that international law does not own certain words. While this is true, to invoke something as serious of genocide outside of its universal legal definition (and the ramifications that go with it) is simply to use the word in an emotive ideological context. Dr. Luker should know the failure in logic that stems from simply claiming that one is using a word from its dictionary definition - the word is used in a specific emotive context to sustain a certain argument (usually ideological). Dr. Luker's (and others) arguments that they are simply using a dictionary definition should be rejected out of hand by those of us critical enough to examine how and why they are using that definition and the assumptions underlying the reasons for the usage. This is why I must insist when we are speaking of subjects such as genocide or refugees that we define our terms and use them consistently. If you want to utilize the Genocide Convention, the Armenian genocide does not necessarily fit the definition. If you want to utilize the customary law or precedential definition, then one must be willing to admit a great number of situations as genocidal. Precision is key...if it is not utilized, we simply end up with ideologues on both sides utilizing their own terms to put forth their own pet projects which most of the time can be found to be hypocritical and contradictory.

The difference between war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are debatable issues within a specific legal realm. I will be the first to agree that all three are deplorable and should shock the conscience. but shocking the conscience is not good enough if we seek to truly define and determine what has happened and what the ramifications should be. Historians do not exist without a certain degree of ethical and universal mroal responsibility. history is not just black and white...it cannot be taught "objectively." Utilization of these terms without definition and without realizing their ideological underpinnings is a betrayal of our academic responsibilities. You have a responsibility to be consistent, both inside and outside of the classroom. if you are using the definition in an ideological manner...i am fine with that...just say you are so that we know that it is your ideology and is therefore irrelevant to universality and society as a whole (note I did not say this is what you are doing...it is just an example).

As another example...lets look at the indiscriminate bombing that the US government takes part in...or the use of depleted uranium weaponry. In international criminal law there are different types of culpability. Gross negligence (which is the best the US could claim...recklessness is probably the best description) is enough to trigger the prevention clause of the genocide convention. The US knows that they are targeting Iraqis, and knows that by using DU weapons or indiscriminate bombings they are killing thousands of innocent civilians over an extended period of time (when one counts the cancer, infant mortality, etc). if one wants to bring the idea of cultural geoncide back into the genocide convention or legal debate, one must then consider whether the US targeting of specific areas recklessly with weapons they know to cause large scale civilian death would then trigger a prevention on the part of the international community. I would not make the argument that genocide was taking place (although it is easy to see the intentional...under the "should have known" reckless criminal standard...targeting of Iraqis...even under the guise of targeting militants), but it is definitely a crime against humanity (targeted against non-combatants). In contrast, one can question whether even crimes against militants or combatants are war crimes or should take the more serious form of crimes against humanity since the war was waged illegally. Since the war was in violation of the UN Charter, technically combatant status could be revoked for US troops, thereby putting them and their commanders (including the President) in the realm of crimes against humanity against the Iraqi people and state and, since it was an intentional attack, thereby entering the realm of cultural genocide that many want to claim regarding the Balkans, Sudan, and other places that meet their ideological likeness.

Words have consequences, and the weak argument that you are "using the dictionary definition" should fail with any scholar worth his salt. The post was not an accusation against you...rather it was yet another reminder to everyone that if you want to speak of such matters, you must be universal, impartial and consistent. Utilizing universal definitions under the rule of law is the only way to do such a thing. If you do not, they are empty ideological ramblings that are bereft of meaning since they only serve your ideological purpose. Those who complain about Turkey and then absolve Belgium have no ground to stand on...they should shut up about both and not complain about either. once you accept one instance, you should be prepared to accept all and return to Hobbes' state of nature where there are no rights or laws outside of your own individually ideological framework. There can be no complaining about terrorists when you defend them...they are simply doing the same thing you are...acting according to their ideology and defending those who fit within it. Both sides are absolutely wrong, and there is no such thing as law or rights in either of their ideologies, just power based arguments about control.

Consistency...that is all I ask.

CP

Jonathan Dresner - 9/23/2005

The very concept of historical specialization, particularly focus on national histories, is anathema to a one-worlder like Mr. Pettit. It's all or nothing; globalism or chauvinism; black and white (and red all over, but that's another joke). There is nothing you can do to satisfy him; satisfy yourself.

Ralph E. Luker - 9/23/2005

Chris, Would you bother yourself to read what Hugo posted and to understand what he has and has not said _before_ you launch into your standard tirade about "genocide"? You make all kinds of accusations here. So far as I know, Hugo is innocent of all the things you make accusations about. Your polemic is _boring_, Chris.

Hugo Schwyzer - 9/23/2005

Gosh, who knew I could simultaneously be right and be "ideologue with no credibility" simply because I am focused on Turkey?

I don't teach Native American history, I don't teach Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Rwanda. I do teach the Ottoman Empire and World War One. Hence, my focus on the recent court decision.

chris l pettit - 9/23/2005

lets see...

the claim that a genocide was perpetrated against Native Americans is denied because "the legal term wasn't invented yet", there was no genocide in Vietnam by American forces, Israeli ethnic cleansing against Palestinians doesn't count, anything other than Serbian crimes in the Balkans doesn't count...

and yet people come up with plenty of causes to call genocide...such as the Armenian genocide, Sudan, and Srebrenica...

All I want is consistency and a ceasing of the hypocrisy that occurs when ideologically based historians start waxing poetic utilizing terms that they do not understand.

As one who has written several articles detailind why ethnic cleansing does constitute an aspect of genocide and that the duty to prevent in the genocide convention means that governments and the UN must recognize and combat the factors that cause genocide, I am totally in favor of calling the Armenian genocide just that. In fact, Ralph Lemkin coined the term to describe the Armenian situation, not to describe the German treatment of those sent to the concentration camps (which reminds me...British treatment of Boers in South Africa also constitutes genocide, as does Leopold in Congo).

If one wants to bring cultural genocide into the equation (it was blatantly left out of the original genocide convention because of the fact that the US and others did not want to be liable for genocides perpetrated against the Native Americans and others), as is the case in the Armenian situation, one must recognize the factors involved in cultural genocide and use the term when it applies, not just in cases when they feel it fits their ideological sense of value...meaning Hugo should also be condemning cultural genocide by the Israelis, the Americans in Vietnam, the Chinese in TIbet, the Russians in Chechnya, in Zimbabwe, etc.

all I want is an end to the hypocrisy...if you want to call it genocide, be consistent...if you are not, you are nothing but an ideologue with no credibility

by the way...it is most definitely genocide under the customary law definition...it only fails to meet the requirements of the genocide convention...and even then because of certain procedural nonsense...yet another reason state governments and treaty law should be secondary to customary human rights law and the wisdom of non-ideological impartial judiciaries.

CP