Geopolitics of Denial: Turkish State’s ‘Armenian Problem’

Abstract

Denial of the crimes committed against the Armenians during the late Ottoman Empire has been a permanent feature of modern Turkish diplomatic statecraft, which stems from Turkey’s geopolitical anxieties closely tied with the nation-building process in the Anatolian lands at the expense of other non-Turkish and non-Muslim minorities. The aim of this article is to examine the current discursive debates and diplomatic statecraft in the construction of the denial policies of the Turkish state. Even though Turkey has now departed from collective amnesia and the Armenian genocide has been opened up to public debate, the denial policy has now become an integral part of the Islamic conservative Justice and Development Party’s neo-Ottomanist grand strategy and its regional ambitions. To this extent, the centenary of the Armenian genocide offered an opportunity to the intellectuals and the executers of Turkish statecraft to rebrand its denial policy by deploying diplomatic measures of apology and just memory, and decentring the remembrance that led to the gradual racialization of the Armenian other as a geopolitical threat to the Turkish national identity.

Notes

1. U. U. Gungor, ‘“Turkey for the Turks”: demographic engineering in Eastern Anatolia’, in R. G. Sunny, F. M. Gocek, and N. M. Naimark (eds), A Question of Genocide: Armenian and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011. K. Oktem, ‘Incorporating the time and space of the ethnic ‘other’: nationalism and space in Southeast Turkey in the 19th and 20th centuries’, Nations and Nationalism 10(4) 2004, pp. 559–578.

2. See the seminal monograph on the continuity between the late Ottoman and the early Republican period: Erik J. Zurcher, The Young Turk Legacy and Nation Building: From the Ottoman Empire to Ataturk’s, I. B. Tauris, London, 2010; for the constructed nature of the Turkish nation see Ayse. Kadioglu, ‘The paradox of Turkish nationalism and construction of official identity’, Middle Eastern Studies 32(4), pp. 177–193.

3. Until recently denigrating Turkishness was a crime (Article 301 of the Criminal Code). For instance, Turkish novelists Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak faced charges for raising awareness of the Armenian Genocide. Following the murder of Hrant Dink, an Armeninan dissident journalist in 2008, article 301 was amended by the Turkish Parliament by replacing the word ‘Turkishness’ with the phrase ‘the Turkish Nation’.

4. Akcam draws our attention to the fact that the atrocities committed against the Anatolian Armenians were not driven by racist ideology of the Ottoman state but mainly geopolitical ‘realist’ considerations and ‘pragmatist’ reactions to the hyper-fear of territorial loss, humiliation and defeat—what he describes as ‘ideology of the lack of ideology’. He also suggest that ‘trying to seek a racially planned motivations behind the elimination of the Armenian populations’ is a futile exercise. Turk Ulusal Kimligi ve Ermeni, Iletisim Sorunu’ (National Identity and the Armenian Question) Iletisim Yayinlari, Ankara, 1994, pp. 114–118. What I am suggesting in this article that state-sponsored racism as a denial is a modern phenomenon and the outcome of the defensive nation-building.

5. The ‘Armenian Genocide’ started to attract the attention of the international community in 1965 as the 50th anniversary was for the first time commemorated by the Armenian diaspora in Lebanon; see interview with Aris Nalci and Serdar Korucu, two journalists who recently published a book on this period: 1965: 50 years before 2015, 50 years after 1915, <http://www.todayszaman.com/op-ed_our-mistakes-about-1915-started-in-1965-by-alin-ozinian-_350682.html> (accessed 19 June 2015).

6. Up to this point hardly any substantial publication in Turkish on the issue publicly existed.

7. The Mulkiye Mektebi or Civil Service Academy had been established in 1859 to train the new cadres which were needed as a result of the centralization of the administration during the Tanzimat reformation and westernization period. The Mulkiye was succeeded by a School of Law in 1878. Both were inspired by French models and designed to train civil servants. Much of the curricula were borrowed from France. It was eventually moved to Ankara in 1935 transforming itself into the celebrated Faculty of Political Science of Ankara University in 1946. Since then, it has gradually evolved into a centre for political and historical research in addition to performing its original but declining function of training civil servants. The graduates of the faculty played an important role in the modernization and nation-building process in Turkey. Ilter Turan, ‘Origins of the political studies in Turkey’, <http://www.siyasiilimler.org.tr/docpdf/The_Origins_of_Political_Studies-Ilter_Turan.pdf> (accessed 17 January 2015).

8. Prime Ministry, Directorate General of Press and Information, Documents on Ottoman Armenians, Ankara, 1983.

9. K. Gurun, The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed, Rustem and Brother, London, 1985; T. Ataöv, Armenian Falsification, Sevinc Matbaasi, Ankara, 1985; Tȕrkkaya Ataöv, Another Falsification: Statement (1926) Wrongly Attributed to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Sistem Ofset, Ankara, 1988; <http://www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/yearbookdizin/dosyalar/MMTY/24/9_turkaya_ataov.pdf > (accessed 17 December 2013).

10. See the seminal work on the manipulation and distortion of history: T. Akcam, ‘Anatomy of a crime; The Turkish Historical Society’s manipulation of archival documents’, Journal of Genocide Research 7(2), 2005, pp. 255–277.

11. Before the conference ‘Ottoman Armenians During the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Academic Responsibility and Issues’, the Minister of Justice, Cemil Cicek, warned that organizing such a conference amounts to ‘backstabbing the Turkish nation’. T. Daloglu, ‘AKP condemns one tragedy but downplays another’, Al Monitor http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/armenian-genocide-akp-tragedy-dersim-political.html# (accessed 17 January 2015).

12. I am not a legal scholar, hence it is not my aim to discuss the legality of the crime here but to map out the discourses concerning the labelling practices here.

13. Article II, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide, adopted by resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly, December 9, 1948 and entered into force on 12 January 1951, <https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf> (accessed 10 October 2014)

14. W. A. Schabas, ‘Crimes against humanity as a paradigm for international atrocity crimes’, Middle East Critique 20(3), 2011, p. 256.

15. See for instance for the official Turkish view on the legality of the crime: G. Aktan, ‘The Armenian problem and international law’, <http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/DISPOLITIKA/ErmeniIddialari/gunduz-aktan-the-armenian-problem-and-international-law-2001.pdf> (accessed 9 November 2014); also other documents and publications on Turkish official view provided by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, <http://www.mfa.gov.tr/controversy-betweenturkey-and-armenia-about-the-events-of-1915.en.mfa> (accessed 21 April 2014).

16. Schabas, op. cit., p. 256.

17. Publications supporting the Turkish view: Gurun, The Armenian File; Guenter Lewy, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2005; Justin McCarthy, The Armenian Rebellion at Van, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2006; Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1922, Darwin Press, Princeton NJ, 1996; Hikmet Ozdemir, The Ottoman Army 1914–1918: Disease and Death on the Battlefield, Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 2008. Publications supporting the Armenian views: Vahakn N. Dadrian, The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus, Berghahn Books, New York, 1995; Vahakn N. Dadrian, Warrant for Genocide: Key Elements of Turko-Armenian Conflict, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1999; Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 2007; Taner Akcam, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, Henry Holt, New York, 2006; Vahakn N. Dadrian and Taner Akcam, Judgment at Istanbul: The Armenian Genocide Trials, Berghahn Books, New York: 2011. This is not an exhaustive list.

18. New Statesman, 10 December 2009.

19. Interview with Robertson in Armenian press, <http://armenpress.am/eng/news/797864/denialist-historians-deny-the-genocide-because-they-dont-know-the-law-geoffrey-robertson.html> (accessed 23 March 2015).

20. For the mapping out of these scholarly discourses see H. Yavuz, ‘Contours of Scholarship on

Armenian Turkish Relations’, Middle East Critique, 20(3), 2011, pp. 231–251; also

T. Akcam, ‘Anatomy of a crime: the Turkish Historical Society’s manipulation of archival documents’, Journal of Genocide Research 7(2), 2005, pp. 255–277.

21. Cited in Akcam, Anatomy of Genocide: Anatomy of Genocide Denial: Academics, Politicians, and the ‘Re-Making’ of History, <http://chgs.umn.edu/histories/occasional/Akcam_Anatomy_of_Denial.pdf>, Zaman newspaper, 21 January 2005 (accessed 17 January 2009).

22. See interview with E. Zürcher, ‘The role of historians of Turkey in the study of Armenian Genocide’, Research Turkey, 9 May 2015, <http://researchturkey.org/the-role-of-historians-of-turkey-in-the-study-of-armenian-genocide/> and also for the Turkish view: ‘We should try to not turn past tragedies into present-day hatred and conflict’ says top academic Hakan Yavuz' Daily Sabah, 23 April 2015, <http://www.dailysabah.com/op-ed/2015/04/23/we-should-try-to-not-turn-past-tragedies-into-presentday-hatred-and-conflict-says-top-academic-hakan-yavuz> (accessed 27 May 2015).

23. B. Der Matossian, ‘The “definitiveness” of genocide and a question of genocide: a review essay’, Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 20, 2011, pp. 173–187.

24. For an excellent recent survey of historiography on Armenian genocide see U. U. Gungor, ‘Fresh understanding of the Armenian genocide: mapping new terrain with old questions’, in Adam Jones (ed.), New Directions in Genocide Research, Routledge, London, 2011, pp. 198–213.

25. K. Tambar, ‘Historical critique and political violence after the Ottoman Empire’, History of the Present, 3(2), 2013, p.136.

26. J. Gisbert, ‘The eagle of history: notes on the cultural memories of Armenians’, Recordando a Walter Benjamin Justica, Historia y Verdad. Escruitas de la Memoria, 2010, <http://conti.derhuman.jus.gov.ar/2010/10/mesa-20/gispert_mesa_20.pdf> (accessed 11 June 2013).

27. J. E. Young, The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1993.

28. S. Neuman and A. Huyssen, Eurozine interview: ‘The Armenian genocide: issues of responsibility and democracy’, <http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-02-13-huyssenneiman-en.html> (accessed 23 September 2013).

29. A. Göl, ‘Imagining the Turkish nation through “othering” Armenians’, Nations and Nationalism, 11, 2005, pp. 121–139.

30. Interview with Garo Paylan, <http://www.etha.com.tr/Haber/2014/04/23/guncel/devlet-inkari-devam-ettiremeyecegini-gordu/> (accessed 16 May 2015).

31. T A. van Dijk, ‘Discourse and the denial of racism’, Discourse and Society, 3(1), 1992, pp. 87–117.

32. See for an authoritative legal opinion L. Pech, who acted in Perincek’s freedom of speech as a defence lawyer. He suggested ‘Public authorities should, however, resist the enticing temptation to the force of criminal law to “sanctify” clearly established historical facts. This is not to say that nothing can or should be done to counter the genocide deniers’ fallacies.’ Pech calls the European governments to focus their energy and resources on establishing and supporting research and education programmes, not only regarding the Holocaust but also regarding other genocides and crimes against humanity, as well as to encourage ceremonies of remembrance and support the preservation of memorials. L. Pech, ‘The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe: toward a (qualified) EU-wide Criminal Prohibition in Genocide Denials and the Law', in L. Hennebel and T. Hochmann (eds) Genocide Denials and Law, Oxford University Press, New York, 2011, p. 234.

33. ‘Denial should be defeated by facts, not law’, SPIKED magazine, available at < http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/3609#.VZKSNEbNCJc > (accessed 23 May 2014).

34. Schabas, op. cit., p. 269.

35. V. Avedian, ‘State identity, continuity, and responsibility: the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide’, European Journal of International Law, 23(3), 2012 pp. 797–820.

36. For the process-based view of genocide by attrition leads to destruction including mental harm and emotional pain. S. P. Roenberg, ‘Genocide is a process not an event’, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal 7(1), 2012, pp. 16–23.

37. G. H. Stanton, ‘The ten stages of genocide’, <http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/> (accessed 14 March 2015).

38. U. U. Ungor, ‘The Armenian genocide: a multidimensional process of destruction’, Global Dialogue, 15(1), Winter/Spring 2013, <http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=551> (accessed 5 July 2014).

39. D. E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Insult on Truth and Memory, Free Press, New York, 1993, p. 217.

40. A. Whitehorn, The Armenian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Santa Barbara, CA, 2015; S. Cohen, States of Denial: Knowing about the Atrocities and Suffering, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2001.

41. F. M Gocek, Denial of Violence Ottoman Past, Turkish Present, and Collective Violence against the Armenians, 1789–2009, Oxford University Press, New York, 2014.

42. In a newspaper interview, the Director General for Policy Planning at the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Ambassador Altay Cengizer, stated that Turkey should devise an effective state strategy to counter the Armenian claims: ‘Their aim is to leave Turkey with a past it cannot deal with; that is why we are targeting 2015.’ ‘Turkey will do its best to tell what it believes is right against these claims that target its own identity.If I were an Armenian, I would have continued to say what I have been saying.’ Likening the Armenian campaign of remembrance to a penalty shootout, ‘Because the 100th year is in a way a penalty shot. We challenge the shot, but they [Armenians] will take it. They see the 100th year as a penalty shot awarded to them and they will try to convert it into a goal. Our biggest problem here is the belief that the Armenian explanation brings a moral superiority—which in fact is not the case.’ Ambassador Cengizer also published a book, ‘In the Light of Just Memory’. ‘Turkey needs post-2015 strategy on Armenian genocide claims, says Turkish diplomat’, Hurriyet Daily News, 10 November 2014, <http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-needs-post-2015-strategy-on-armenian-genocide-claims-says-turkish-iplomat.aspx?PageID=238&NID=74089&NewsCatID=510> (accessed 15 December 2014).

43. G. O. Tuathail and J. Agnew, ‘Geopolitics and discourse: practical geopolitical reasoning in American foreign policy’, Political Geography, 11(2), 1992, pp. 190–204.

44. M. Muller, ‘Reconsidering the concept of discourse for the field of critical geopolitics: towards discourse as language and practice’, Political Geography, 27, 2008, pp. 322–238.

45. Each discursive practice produces its own language and its own claims to truth. According to Foucault, this ‘regime of truth’, its ‘general politics of truth, that is the type of discourse it accepts and makes function as true’. M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. and trans. by Colin Gordon, Harvester, Sussex, 1980, p. 131.

46. T. Akcam, ‘Facing history: denial and the Turkish national security concept’, Armenian Weekly, 16 April 2009, < http://armenianweekly.com/2009/04/16/denial-and-the-turkish-national-security-concept/> (accessed 19 January 2014).

47. The Turkish court ruling stated: ‘Talk about genocide, both in Turkey and in other countries, unfavourably affects national security and the national interest. The claim of genocide … has become part of and the means of special plans aiming to change the geographic political boundaries of Turkey … and a campaign to demolish its physical and legal structure.’ The ruling further stated that the Republic of Turkey is under ‘a hostile diplomatic siege consisting of genocide resolutions… . The acceptance of this claim may lead in future centuries to a questioning of the sovereignty rights of the Republic of Turkey over the lands on which it is claimed these events occurred.’ Due to these national security concerns, the court declared that the claim of genocide in 1915 is not protected speech, and that ‘the use of these freedoms can be limited in accordance with aims such as the protection of national security, of public order, of public security’. Court decree, Second Penal Court of First Instance for the district of Sisli, file number: 2006/1208, decree no. 2007/1106, prosecution no. 2006/8617 Cited and translated in Akcam, ibid.

48. N. Sandal, ‘Turkey and the neo-Ottoman approach to Human Rights’, Open Democracy, 17 June 2013, <https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/nukhet-sandal/turkey-and-neo-ottoman-approach-to-human-rights> (accessed 12 July 2014).

49. E. Golbasi, ‘The 1895–1896 Armenian massacres in the Ottoman Eastern Provinces: a prelude to extermination or a revolutionary provocation?’, Papers of the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 25 (2015), http://commons.clarku.edu/chgspapers/25 (accessed 31 August 2015); S. Dincer, ‘The Armenian massacre in Istanbul (1896)’, Tidschrift Vor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis, 10(4), 2013, pp. 20–45.

50. B. Ozkan, ‘Turkey, Davutoglu and the idea of pan-Islamism’, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 56(4), 2014, pp. 119–140.

51. A. Davutoğlu, Civilizational Transformation and the Muslim World, Mahir, Kuala Lumpur, 1994. See also, ‘The roots of Turkish conduct: understanding the manifestation of Davutoglu’s policy’; and S. Ozel and B. Ozkan, ‘Illusion versus reality: Turkey’s approach to the Middle East and North Africa’, FRIDE Policy Brief, 200, 2015, <http://fride.org/download/PB200_Turkey_approach_to_MENA.pdf> (accessed 20 May 2015).

52. See F. Tastekin, ‘Wiretaps reveal Turkey's attacks on Syrian regime positions’, Al Monitor, <http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/turkey-syria-weapons-civil-war-kessab-armenian.html#> (accessed 26 July, 2014)

53. G. J. Libaridian, ‘Erdogan and his Armenian problem’. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 12(1), 2013, pp. 43–64.

54. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Turkey, <http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkish-prime-minister-mr_-recep-tayyip-erdogan-published-a-message-on-the-events-of-1915.en.mfa> (accessed 27 April 2014).

55. Ibid.

56. F. M. Gocek, ‘Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s non-apologies to the Armenians and Kurds’, 7 July 2014 <http://www.e-ir.info/2014/07/07/turkish-prime-minister-erdogans-non-apologies-to-the-armenians-and-kurds/> (accessed 24 September 2014).

57. Z. Kampf and N. Löwenheim, ‘Rituals of Apology in the global arena’, Security Dialogue, 43(1), 2012, pp. 43–60.

58. The improvement of diplomatic relations with Armenia have been made conditional on the progress on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

59. M. R. Marrus, ‘Official apologies and the quest for historical justice’, Journal of Human Rights, 6(1), 2007, pp. 75–105.

60. A. Davutoglu, ‘Turks and Armenians we must bury our common pain’, Guardian, 2 May 2014, <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/02/turks-armenians-erdogan-condolences-1915-armenian-massacre> (accessed 23 May 2014); A. Davutoglu, ‘Turkish–Armenian relations in the process of de-Ottomanization or “dehistoricization”: is a “just memory” possible?’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, Spring 2014, pp. 21–30.

61. Davutoglu, ‘Turkish–Armenian relations in the process of de-Ottomanization or “dehistoricization”’, op. cit., p. 28.

62. U. U. Gungor, ‘The Armenian genocide: a multidimensional process of destruction’, op. cit.

63. Armenia News, <http://news.am/eng/news/259520.html> (accessed 11 December 2014).

64. ‘Turkish President Erdogan’s Gallipoli prayer stirs debate’, Hurriyet Daily News, 21 April 2015, <http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-president-erdogans-gallipoli-prayer-stirs-debate.aspx?pageID=238&nID=81350&NewsCatID=338> (accessed 27 July 2015).

65. T. Akcam, Turk Ulusal Kimligi ve Ermeni Sorunu, Iletisim Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1994, pp. 114–118.

66. S. Akturk, ‘Persistence of the Islamic millet as an Ottoman legacy: mono-religious and anti-ethnic definition of Turkish nationhood’, Middle Eastern Studies, 45(6), 2009, pp. 893–909.

67. ‘PM uses offensive racist language targeting Armenians’, Today’s Zaman, 6 August 2014, <http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_pm-uses-offensive-racist-language-targeting-armenians_354746.html> (accessed 14 September 2014). In his inflammatory style, as a reaction to the European Parliament’s recognition of the Armenian genocide, Erdogan has also expressed that Turkey retains the right to deport the Armenian migrants in Turkey: ‘Erdogan threatens to deport Armenian citizens of Turkey’, Today’s Zaman, <http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_erdogan-threatens-to-deport-armenian-citizens-in-turkey_378062.html 15 April 2015> (accessed 16 May 2015).

68. İ. Az. et al., Hate Speech in National and Local Press in Turkey, Hrant Dink Foundation, Istanbul, 2014, <http://nefretsoylemi.org/rapor/May-Agust2014.pdf> (accessed 12 September 2014). A pro-government national, the Vahdet daily, declared on its front cover that 300 leaders of the outlawed Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) are crypto-Armenians and claimed that they were baptized in churches—a problem that remains prevalent in the Turkish press. This is a typical example in which the term ‘Armenian’ is used as a curse word. ‘Turkish Media government plagued by hate speech’, Today’s Zaman, 2 May 2014, <http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_turkish-media-government-plagued-by-hate-speech_379493.html> (accessed 29 July 2104).

69. K. Cayir, Who are we? Identity, Rights and Citizenship in Turkey’s Textbooks, Tarih Vakfi, Istanbul, 2014, <http://insanhaklarisavunuculari.org/dokumantasyon/files/original/f6a141fd0e0d633bb76e5e5fc0377ff7.pdf> (accessed 17 January 2015).

70. J. M. Dixon, ‘Education and national narratives: changing representations of the Armenian genocide in history textbooks in Turkey’, International Journal for Education Law and Policy, Special Issue on education and national narratives, 2010, pp. 103–126http://chgs.umn.edu/pdf/DIXONEducationandNationalNarratives32010.pdf (accessed 21 March 2014).

71. Cayir, op. cit., p.33

72. Ministry of National Education, Grade 7 Social Studies Teacher’s Manual, 229, cited in Cayir, ‘Who are we?’, op. cit., p. 33 On another occasion, the Ministry of Education has defended a school textbook that included defamatory language concerning Armenians, portraying Armenians as ‘dishonourable and treacherous’, suggesting that the book was ‘written with the sense of national reflex and humorous criticism’. The book is titled Bu Dosyayı Kaldırıyorum: Ermeni Meselesi [Closing this File: The Armenian Issue], <http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/controversial-text-book-about-armenians-sparks-stir-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=24224> (accessed 31 September 2015)

73. T. Akcam, ‘Textbooks and Armenian Genocide in Turkey’, Armenian Weekly, 12 April 2014, <http://armenianweekly.com/2014/12/04/textbooks/> (accessed 14 April 2014).