Erdoğan expressed bitterness at the “Armenian genocide” resolution adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House of Representatives earlier this month, which he blamed on intense lobbying by the Armenian diaspora. He went on to say that Turkey, in response to genocide resolutions, could consider sending back “100,000” illegal Armenian immigrant workers it allows, as a sign of goodwill toward Armenia, to stay and work in Turkey.In the words of this paper’s headline on March 18, Prime Minister Erdoğan came “under fire at home for remarks on Armenian workers.” A large number of commentators in the media (including this one) blasted Erdoğan for his remarks, accusing him of suggesting that illegal Armenian workers are a sort of pawns in Turkey’s hands, for tarnishing the country’s international reputation, and damaging normalization efforts with Armenia. A prominent columnist even called on Erdoğan to engage in self-criticism and apologize for his words. The fire against Erdoğan was so intense that even the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), whose deputies in Parliament have on different occasions suggested the deportation of illegal Armenian workers, said Erdoğan’s statement was “against human rights.” A deputy chairman of the ultranationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) said this could be taken as suggesting a “Second Deportation.”
Perhaps the starkest reaction to Erdoğan’s remarks came from the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, founded by Hrant Dink who, as is increasingly becoming clear, was murdered three years ago as part of a campaign to destabilize the country and pave the way for a military coup. Agos’s headline read “A lot of Unionists, but no Progress,” suggesting that Erdoğan’s position was in line with the Ottoman dictators belonging to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) who had ordered the mass deportation of Armenians in 1915.
Erdoğan’s remarks raised the question once more as to whether the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government he leads is sincere in its efforts to solve the Turkish Republic’s perennial problems, including the Armenian problem, or not. Some believe it is sincerely engaged; others argue it is only feigning to do so.
I was thus tempted to write a column addressing the question. This, essentially, was my argument: A fair judgment on the above question can be passed mainly on the basis of two considerations. The first is the difference between intellectuals and politicians in democratic regimes. Intellectuals defend historical “truths” and are prepared to run against the prevailing views in society, while politicians need to enlist substantial support from society (win elections) if they are to tackle the problems at hand and thus need to pay attention to the prevailing views in society. Intellectual discourse may be said to be based on historical truths, while that of politicians is based on truths acceptable by society at large.
The second factor to be considered is the AKP’s “state of mind.” It is quite clear that this government has displayed greater willingness to solve Turkey’s perennial problems, including the Armenian problem, than all previous governments. It has tied the solution of the Armenian problem (which essentially consists of Turkey facing the tragedy that befell the Ottoman Armenians) to normalization with Armenia. It is, however, not only compelled to work under various internal and external political constraints but is also quite confused in its “mind” as regards what the problem really is about. It appears that views extending from tacitly agreeing to the necessity of facing historical truths to those which are entirely in line with the official line, defended ever since the founding of the republic, are harbored by the government.
Confusion seems to exist also in the mind of Erdoğan himself. The same Erdoğan who last May said: “For years certain things were done in this country. Those with different ethnic identities were kicked out of our country. Did we gain anything from that? That was the result of a fascistic approach …” declared a few days ago that the “history of this country is as clean, dear, glorious and bright as the sun and never can be distorted by parliaments.”
Erdoğan may be a politician who speaks as he deems necessary to win another election or someone confused in his mind as to what the nature of the Armenian problem is. It is, however, certain that the internal debate in Turkey which he has done much to broaden will lead Turkey to sooner or later face the tragedy that befell the Ottoman Armenians during World War I.
