“The Turkish public started to talk about the topic only recently, so people are not familiar with the terminology used regarding the issue, and every new development on the subject causes unnecessary concern and indignation,” he explained.
He said those who opposed an apology campaign initiated by Turkish intellectuals in December of last year, which also used “great catastrophe” to refer to the killings, misinformed the public by claiming that the signatories of the campaign accepted the Armenian position that the events constituted “genocide.”
Obama’s decision not to use the word “genocide” to describe the historical events, but instead “Meds Yeghern” and “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century,” was a result of Obama’s desire to avoid hindering efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations.
‘Meds Yeghern’ is not linguistically identical with the word “genocide.” Obama’s choice of words was intended to avoid disturbing Turkey and, at the same time, to respond to his electorate. The Turkish public started to talk about the topic only recently, so people are not familiar with the terminology, and every new development on the subject causes unnecessary concern and indignation’ |
In an interview with Monday Talk, Esayan talked about the response of Turkish-Armenians and the Armenian diaspora to Obama’s statement.
Did Obama’s use of the Armenian phrase “Meds Yeghern” surprise you?
I knew that he was not going to use the same language employed by his predecessors. We could read this from his remark following his election that he had not changed his position on the issue. During his visit to Turkey, he had said his views on the killings of Armenians, which he has previously referred to as genocide, have not changed. He also called on Turkey to address the killings of Armenians, but gave clear signs that he would stay out of the debate, saying it is up to Turkey and Armenia to deal with history. He was briefed in his visit to Turkey that Armenia and Turkey are going through an important and courageous process that should not be harmed. It was luck that Obama was in Turkey prior to April 24. So on April 24 he was careful, yet principled. “Meds Yeghern” is the wording used by Armenians themselves. It is not linguistically identical with the word “genocide.” His choice of words was intended to avoid disturbing Turkey and, at the same time, to respond to his electorate.
Why then was Turkey so disturbed?
Turkey hasn’t been discussing this issue for a long time. The Turkish public started to talk about the topic only recently, so people are not familiar with the terminology used regarding the issue, and every new development on the subject causes unnecessary concern and indignation.
 Markar Esayan, Turkish-Armenian writer and journalist He was born in İstanbul to an Armenian father and a Muslim mother. After being educated in the schools of the Armenian community, he graduated from Anadolu University's school of business. He had a column in the Turkish-Armenian community newspaper Agos until he became general publishing coordinator and a regular columnist at the Taraf daily. He made major contributions to the restructuring of Agos following the murder of Editor-in-Chief Hrant Dink. Esayan's award-winning first novel, "Şimdinin Dar Odası" (The Narrow Room of Now), was released in 2005. His second novel, "Karşılaşma" (Encounter), was published in 2007. |
The same terminology was used in the apology campaign.
Yes, it is the term used by Armenians to describe the catastrophe. It is a humanitarian term beyond political debate. Those who opposed the apology campaign misinformed the public by saying that the signatories of the campaign accepted “genocide” even though they did not use the term “genocide” and referred to the events as “Great Catastrophe.” Turkey found Obama’s words harsh. But what Obama did was not “fooling” Turkey, as the prime minister [Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] put it, because there are no words in his message regarding Turkey. He refers to the events experienced in the last years of the Ottoman Empire. He has certain beliefs regarding these events and he had promised his electorate, so he was doing what was expected of him. We should respect this.
‘Turkish democracy to be consolidated if Dink murder unraveled' Do you believe the Dink case could be merged with the Ergenekon case? Most of the people widely known in the public for their opposing views and open threats against Hrant Dink are now being tried in relation to the Ergenekon case. This relation makes us think that the Ergenekon and Dink cases are connected. In the first Ergenekon indictment, there was only a small reference to the Dink case. In the indictment we see that the prosecutor thinks there could be a relationship, but he could not find conclusive evidence. However, in the second Ergenekon indictment, which was released recently, there are more serious references to the Dink case. Like what? The lawyers in the Dink case are closely examining the second indictment, but as far as I have seen, in the murder of Christians at the Zirve publishing house, there was a person, Metin Doğan, whose testimony was included in the second indictment. He says he came to İstanbul and spoke with Veli Küçük and Muzaffer Tekin, and he heard them talking about eliminating such persons as Hrant Dink and Orhan Pamuk. According to the indictment, he also said Küçük and Tekin talked about the people who would be able to commit such acts, and they said it was more difficult to kill Pamuk but that Dink was an easy target. The Council of State shooting in 2006 was recently merged with the Ergenekon case. This happened based on the testimony of Osman Yıldırım [another suspect in the shooting]. Yıldırım’s testimony was found quite valuable. We will see if Metin Doğan’s testimony carries such importance. Apart from its ties to the Ergenekon case, we are worried about many other deficiencies. Such as? The fact that there were plans to assassinate Dink was apparent to the security forces even one-and-a-half years before the murder. There are intelligence reports showing this. The intelligence flow regarding plans to kill Dink started in November 2005, and these reached security circles, including the Trabzon gendarmerie, Trabzon police forces and the head of the intelligence services and security forces in İstanbul. The person who bought the murder weapon was Coşkun İğci, who is the brother-in-law of Yasin Hayal, a prime suspect in the Dink case, and İğci himself informed security forces that Hayal would kill Dink. The dates of the reports proving such connections were changed. So their hard evidence has been eliminated in the Dink case. This could be a result of negligence on the part of the officials. But this is the most disturbing part. The lawyers in the Dink case asked the court in the most recent hearing that the heads of these intelligence units be called to give their testimony, but the court rejected the request. Why do you think the court acted that way? They said their testimony “would not contribute to the case.” The inspection report by the Prime Ministry pointed out the importance of pursuing the issue, even though the report was only advisory. On the other hand, we genuinely need to trust the court and the legal system. The Dink case is such a symbolic case, revealing the truth there would be beneficial to Turkish democracy. Could you tell us more about this idea? The Dink murder intensely demonstrates how some people used the state’s potential -- call it the deep state, Gladio, Ergenekon -- to commit a murder. It is the most concentrated, solid case in that regard. If these relations are revealed, Turkish democracy could have a chance to develop more because it will go through a cleansing process. |
But the Armenian-Americans do not seem pleased, either.
We are sometimes forced to make generalizations, but I would like to emphasize that the Armenian-Americans are not homogenous in that regard. The Armenian diaspora is made up of several different pieces not identical to each other. The Turkish public often thinks that the diaspora is a unified movement that can be mobilized anywhere and at any time and that their main unifying themes are anti-Turkishness and the issue of genocide. This viewpoint is not correct. It is true that some Armenian-Americans were disappointed by Obama’s choice of words in his message. However, there are also Armenian-Americans who have common sense and who genuinely support the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. They think this process of rapprochement is more important than Obama’s use of the term “genocide.”
Do you think the reaction in Armenia is diverse, as well?
They are not all homogenous on the issue. The Armenian opposition to the opening of the border with Turkey has been weakening compared to the past. There was not much indignation in Armenia following Obama’s message. Their agenda is more in line with the reality that they want to do trade with Turkey, visit Turkish lands that they once lived in and have a better standard of living. They have a different point of view from the diaspora. In the diaspora’s view, Turkish-Armenian relations were frozen in 1915. They attach more importance to symbolic words.
‘Turkish-Armenians have most balanced views’
Were the Turkish-Armenians eagerly waiting to see what words Obama would use in his message?
They were. Turkish-Armenians, as a bloc, support the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, and they want the borders to be opened. Actually, they want a disassociation between the words “problem” and “Armenians.” I am about 40 years old now, and since I came into this world, there has always been the phrase “Armenian problem,” which carries only negative connotations.
Do Turkish-Armenians have ties with Armenians in Armenia? Do you visit Armenia?
I have never visited Armenia. Turkish-Armenians do not have many ties with the Armenians living there. We have established our lives here as Turkish-Armenians. We feel like we belong to Turkey. Our emotional ties with the Armenians are not very different from the ties of the Turkish people to the Azerbaijanis living in Azerbaijan. If the border opens between Turkey and Armenia, there will be more human contact between the communities. In Turkey there are about 30,000 Armenians working, and they already have a big function, since they go back to Armenia and tell their friends and family about the Turkish people. So the perceptions of Turks in Armenia have been renewed and have become more realistic. Old fears that “Turks are horrible” are fading.
Your father is a Turkish-Armenian and your mother is a Muslim. Is this a usual combination?
These types of combinations are not uncommon, and there are so many of these partnerships that it worries the Armenian community. Out of every three young Armenians, one marries a non-Armenian. The Armenian community is quite tolerant in that regard, but it is also a double-edged sword. Since the Armenian community is so small in Turkey, they don’t want to get even smaller.
What do the numbers show?
We entered the republican period with 300,000 Armenians in Turkey, 130,000 of them in Anatolia. Now we are about 50,000. If Armenians living in Turkey did not have to immigrate as a result of the alienating policies of the Turkish state, we would be at least a few million today.
What kind of difficulties did you face as an Armenian child living in Turkey?
We had stressful times during ASALA’s [Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, a terrorist organization that targeted Turkish diplomats in Europe during the 1970s and 1980s] assassinations. We were not insulted by our Turkish neighbors, but relations were difficult at times and we felt the stress. We became more aware of our Armenian identity as a result. We have had feelings of guilt.
Is the issue of “genocide” a unifying theme for the Armenians of Turkey?
The state’s pressure on minorities has created reservations among Turkish-Armenians about discussing the events of 1915. We don’t even talk about it among ourselves. Another reason for not discussing the issue is to look to the future rather than the past because we live in this country and we want a future for our children here. There is another simple reason for Turkish-Armenians not to discuss the issues of 1915, and that is fear. You cannot talk about it or write about it and you cannot speak about your pain. I know it very well from my family. On the other hand, Turkish-Armenians, more than any other Armenian community in the world, realize the difference between the Turkish public and Turkish state policies.
Why do you think the Turkish-Armenians are different?
Because they conduct business in Turkish society and marry Turkish people. They have all kinds of people-to-people relationships in the society. So they have the most objective, balanced point of view, especially expressed by the Turkish-Armenian intellectuals such as Hrant Dink.
Benzer Haberler 
