This is owing not only to a reflex of nationalistic feelings but also because Turks base their reactions on their own historical grounds. Where and when such grounds are not known, Turks appear to be almost too patriotic and sensitive to historical issues. I would like to list a few reasons to help those unfamiliar with the subject to understand Turks’ reactions. 1. The Turkish public is skeptical about the sincerity of those European countries that insist on keeping the Armenian genocide on their agenda. Turkish people believe the Armenian issue is being used as a tool to keep Turkey outside EU membership. A feeling prevalent among Turkish citizens is that France, an EU member, is using the Armenian issue as leverage against Turkey’s accession to the EU. In other words, for some Western countries the problem is not Armenia, it’s Turkey. Western countries that want to keep Turkey, with its Muslim identity, outside the EU go to great lengths to hinder Turkey in its efforts to develop good relations with the West and to make progress in its EU bid.
2. The incident described as the Armenian genocide took place in 1915 during the Ottoman period. The Sultanate was abolished and the Turkish Republic was established in 1923. Thus, a century-old incident is constantly being brought to the fore to pressure Turkey. A sincere Europe would first take a look at its own recent past. France, for example, must account for its Algerian massacre, and many other Western countries could be held responsible for the war in Bosnia. Europe cannot clear its conscience by blaming the Bosnian massacre on a Serbian dictator.
3. The Turkish people do not perceive the events of 1915 as genocide. They believe that nationalist Armenian leaders collaborated with the enemy, namely, the French and the Russians, to invade Ottoman territory. They believe the alleged genocide was actually a forced emigration. The Ottoman administration foresaw a clash between Turks and Armenians owing to the Armenian cooperation with the invading forces; thus it was forced to evacuate the Armenian minority.
4. It is well known that archives demonstrate that a number of officials in the Ottoman administration were prosecuted for abusing their power during the forced emigration. Some were convicted and punished for failing to effect the safety of the emigrating Armenians. The Turkish public believes that the Ottoman administration, which executed the Boğazlıyan district governor for abusing his power, did not commit genocide.
5. Armenians and the Ottomans lived in peace and harmony for nearly five centuries. The first Armenian church was opened by the conqueror of Istanbul, Sultan Fatih. With Fatih ascending the throne, all religious minorities -- and of course the Armenians-- enjoyed freedom of religion and equal rights, as they do today. Throughout history, Armenian relations have been honored and their rights have been respected since many Armenians served as pashas and worked in foreign affairs and in other important echelons of the Ottoman state. Toward the end of the Ottoman era, an Armenian reached the position of sadrazam, or the second most powerful person in the state bureaucracy. Even during the days of forced emigration there were high-level Armenian officials in office. But polarization, a consequence of the nation-state, began in the 19th century and has continued to the present day. Despite the growing polarization, relations among citizens have remained amicable.
6. The Turkish people do not harbor animosity toward Armenians. There are many Armenians in Turkish cinema, sports, theater and arts: Asu Maralman, Arto, Onno Tunç, Garo Mafyan, soccer player Lefter, photographer Ara Güler and actors Kenan Pars and Sami Hazinses. This list could go on to name many who have become role models; the Turkish and Muslim majority of Turkey’s citizens are not upset by this.
The Turkish government suggested that both sides open up the archives and start debates on the basis of documented evidence. But European countries remained mum and the Armenian diaspora ignored Turkey’s invitation, prompting a reaction from the Turkish public.
That’s the way it is. One could offer a broader range of reasons; however, the few reasons enumerated above should be sufficient to understand why Turks react to the Armenian claims. Until these doubts are cleared up, Turks seem not be eager to discuss the Armenian issue.
