But during the question and answer session, it was clear that Turkey had reached a fork in the road. The Western diplomats who do not wish to offend Turkey want to present our ties with Europe in a balanced manner, but the views of the members of the media are not that balanced.Therefore, the questions centered on the millstones around Turkey's neck. While Turkish diplomats have been repeating that they are European by making references to some documents, foreign journalists have been looking not at the documents, but at the events that have transpired and the mentality that has prevailed. Therefore, it was no surprise that the Armenian issue was discussed and questions on when Turkish authorities would confront its history were asked during the conference, the main topic of which was the "media and economy."
The Turkish authorities that attended the conference said the issue had no bearing on its ties with the EU. Turkey was being pressured over a matter -- one in which it was essentially innocent -- by gullible individuals that have fallen under the influence of international propaganda. It was said that Turkey did not commit genocide and that the side which was avoiding confrontation with its past was Armenia. The statements of Turkey's EU negotiator, Egemen Bağış, were not confined to just these comments. He elaborated on his views by taking advantage of the traditional question, "Why can't we explain to Westerners the so-called Armenian genocide?" He summarized his ideas in these words: "When we look at our archives, we do not see genocide. There is pain, but this pain is mutual." I believe there is still no understanding how objective ears perceive this memorized Foreign Ministry statement.
First, studying archives in Turkey means accessing a very limited number of documents because many historical archives have been destroyed. For example, we no longer have the archives of the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terrakki). They were gathered and burned by Mehmed Talat Paşa, one of the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress. Nor do we have the archives of the Ottoman intelligence organization, Teşkilât-ı Mahsûsa. These groups may be perceived as elements of a state that has gone off track. But the archives from the period's Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs have also vanished. Court records and records of the institution that handled the deportations dating back to 1919 are also "lost." But we do have telegraphs warning members of the Committee of Union and Progress bureaucracy to burn all of the documents in their possession, as well as many notes in members' memoirs describing how the documents were destroyed.
In short, Turkey does not have the essential archives pertaining to the year 1915 because of a conscientious strategy to destroy them. This situation hints at a fact well known by historians, but is not pointed out to Turkish authorities, perhaps out of courtesy. Instead, they faintly smile and continue taking down notes. There is a big irony in the fact that Turkey has offered to open up the archives to historians when many of its archives have been destroyed by government orders, and Turkey has not taken steps to confront this truth.
There is a similar challenge with the word genocide. A definition of this word is found in the United Nations Charter. While the definition is open and broad in scope, it has become the legal definition. For example, separating children from their mothers because of their ethnic identity or trying to prevent a society from culturally renewing themselves can be coined as genocide. If we look at it from this perspective, then there have been many occurrences of genocide in history and 1915 is not unique. But there is another critical concept involved in defining an event as genocide and that is "deliberate intention," which involves asking the question "Was it done deliberately?"
The answer of those who view history objectively is clear. They say: "The Turkish state, government and public did not as a whole have such intent. But, an organized group within the government and bureaucracy did have such intent."
But Turkey fails to make this distinction. Instead of associating today's Turkey with Turks who respect the laws, the freedom of thought and conscience and protect their Armenian neighbors, Turkey is associated with racist Turks that have committed murder and torture. It does this even though it sees how this fascist-like wave is poisoning the government.
This is the real issue on the agenda that Turkey needs to confront -- confronting the events of 1915 is a sub-topic. Turkey must confront the ideology that used nationalism and secularism to extol statism, which has placed the regime under military authority and has brought it to the brink of fascism.
But the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is not that strong and therefore it is avoiding confrontation by using "the pain is mutual" rhetoric. On the one hand, it suggests setting up a joint history commission and, on the other, it insists that genocide did not occur. It is said that history concerns historians, but whenever the topic comes up, Turkey's importance is highlighted, as if a country that is powerful can write history according to its own will. Yet this is not surprising either, considering that the history of the republic is also a byproduct of this understanding.
In other words, the current Turkey implies a society that has been removed from the facts by ideological gimmicks and this removal was part of a state strategy. So the phrase "so-called genocide" calls to mind other facts in Turkey, such as "so-called history" and "so-called citizen." But perhaps what's more important is that this stance has created "so-called morals" and has openly debased the public.
