Their justification for this initiative is as follows: “My conscience does not accept the insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my part, I empathize with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers. I apologize to them.” Let me tell you this first: I have no problem with our Armenian brothers; yes, they are our brothers as human beings; we are humans first.
There are harsh reactions to this campaign. Those who take the reactions to the level of insults are doing wrong.
Unfortunately, there is no democratic behavior and code in our country. Most of us are democrats only to ourselves. We do not want to see any objection or opinion contrary to our thoughts. We do not even know how to have a decent discussion.
Some of the signers of the campaign letter are my friends. I have always appreciated their democratic struggle. I am aware that the joint struggle carried out during the Feb. 28 process to protect democracy, freedom of expression and fundamental rights and freedoms is pretty valuable for the sake of Turkey’s democratization. Above all, I should note that the apology campaign should not lead to weakness on the democratic front; the opposite circles have already started a counter campaign relying on nationalist sentiments.
As for the campaign, I have to recall that this is a personal endeavor. You may participate in it or you simply choose not to. Labeling those who endorse the declaration as traitors is an indication of politics of hatred and enmity.
Regardless of the good faith involved in the campaign, it is an inappropriate one because of its timing. I am of the opinion that it will not do anything to resolve the problems between Turkey and Armenia. I may even say that it will be detrimental to the positive atmosphere created in the aftermath of the visit by President Abdullah Gül to Yerevan for a soccer match. Public support is important for the success of such endeavors. These intellectuals actually caused the emergence of a negative atmosphere in which people now question this apology campaign. In other words, we have partially disrupted the positive environment while we actually intended to do something good.
Those who endorsed the campaign do not deny the fact that Armenian gangs cooperated with the Russians to murder tens of thousands of Muslims and Kurds during World War I. So, would it not be better if they had combined both and offered an alternative statement: “Such calamities and injustices had taken place in history. We have all suffered from these. We mutually share this pain and anguish and hold that mutual apology would be the most proper way to deal with it”? Would it not be more appropriate if they could offer a more lenient declaration to allow the participation of others?
I should also recall another criticism that deserves further thinking and review: The public does not sense the opposition or initiative of these intellectuals in sensitive issues. Why don’t they condemn the Armenian massacres in eastern Anatolia and why don’t they make mention of the murders in Balkans?
I think this campaign is a flawed one because of its improper style and failure to express its real intention.
I, too, apologize to Hrant Dink’s family. I do not endorse the injustices committed against non-Muslims through discriminatory taxation legislations and incidents on Sept. 6-7, 1955. I also do not approve of other persecutions, injustices and murders in other parts of the world. But the future is important. It is important if I could use these apologies as effective tools to settle the issues between us.
Offering an apology is a wise action; an apology by intellectuals is even more meaningful and more valuable. But this apology should facilitate the resolution and actually work to reach a viable settlement.
