Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

Protesters hurl stones at Tunisian president, parliament speaker

By

December 17, 2012 – 17:13 AMT

Angry protesters have hurled stones at the Tunisian president and parliament speaker in Sidi Bouzid, the cradle of the revolution that erupted in the north African country two years ago, Al Jazeera reports.

The incident began after a speech by President Moncef Marzouki in the central Tunisian town, where celebrations are taking place on Monday to mark the anniversary of the revolution. Mustapha Ben Jaafar, the parliament speaker, was about to address the crowd when the violence began.

Security forces swiftly evacuated the two men to the regional government headquarters. The protesters invaded the square where the head of state had been addressing the crowd, shouting “the people want the fall of the government”.

The police held back, after violent clashes over the past few months, which have often followed attempts to disperse protesters angry over the government’s failure to improve living conditions in the poor region.

Clashes and strikes have multiplied across Tunisia in the run-up to the second anniversary of the start of Tunisia’s revolution.

When the president took to the podium on Monday, Dec 17, many in the crowd of around 5,000 started shouting “Get out! Get out!” – one of the rallying cries of the revolution that toppled the regime of former dictator Zine El Abedine Ben Ali.

Marzouki promised economic progress within six months to the people of Sidi Bouzid, where poverty and unemployment were key factors behind the uprising that began there on Dec 17, 2010, after Muhammad Bouazizi a street vendor set himself on fire in protest at police harassment.

“I understand this legitimate anger. But the government has diagnosed the problem. In six months, a stable government will be in place and will provide the remedy to heal the country’s problems,” said the president, who was jeered by the crowd.

“For the first time, we have a government which is not stealing from the people,” he said. Marzouki had been heckled earlier in the morning, when he visited the grave of Bouazizi.

إتفاقية سايكس – بيكو أيار 1916

By

إتفاقية سايكس – بيكو

  أيار 1916

مقدمة

آرا دمبكجيان

    قبل الحديث عن إتفاقية سايكس-بيكو التي وُقِّعَتْ في ربيع 1916  يجب أن نعودَ بذاكرتنا الى مائتي سنة مضت قبل التوقيع عليها، أي أن نمرَّ على الأحداث الجيوسياسية و العسكرية لشعوب تلك المنطقة خلال قرنين من إبرامِها بين دول الحلفاء في أثناء الحرب العظمى (العالمية الأولى) إنكلترا، فرنسا، روسيا و إيطاليا.

    من الطبيعي أن تُبْرَم إتفاقيات تقسيمِ ممتلكات الدول المنهزمة في الحروب بعد انتهائها، و لكن الملاحظ هنا أن إتفاقية سايكس – بيكو أُبْرِمَتْ من دون إنتظار نهاية الحرب العالمية الأولى، بل في منتصفها، إذ كان الكبار و الصغار يتلهفون على تقسيم ممتلكات “الرجل المريض” بعد أن ثبت أن مرضَهُ ليس له شفاء، أولاً، و أن أسياد العالم قد أتفقوا على توزيع الإرث، ثانياً.

    لم تأتِ مقولة “للجغرافية سياستها” إعتباطاً في القاموس الدبلوماسي الأجنبي…فليست للدول المعزولة عن البحار سياسة بحرية و لا هموم صناعة الأساطيل و غيرها، على عكس الدول التي تتنفس عن طريق أساطيلها البحرية و تعيش من خلالها.  قد أحسَّت روسيا بأهمية مضائق البوسفور و الدردنيل في ذلك اليوم الذي وصلت حدودها الى البحر الأسود في أيام حكم القيصر بطرس الأكبر (1672-1725).

 

الحلم الروسي

    يذكر الكاتب و المؤرخ الروسي لوكين في مؤلَّفِهِ (مسيرة الشمال الكبرى): “…توسَّعّت روسيا خلال أربعمائة عام بمقدار خمسين ميلاً مربعاً في اليوم، إذ كانت تبلغ مساحتها 850 ألف ميل مربع سنة 1500 فأصبحت ممتدة على مساحة 8200 ألف ميل مربع سنة 1900.”

    فإذا كانت روسيا آنذاك تريد الحياة كان لِزاماً عليها أن تَنزِل من الشمال البارد نحو المياه الدافئة الواهبة للحياة. و كان لزاماً عليها أيضاً، و بكل جبروتها و قوّتِها و بثقلِ أراضيها الشاسعة، أن تنزلَ نحو البحر الأسود، و بإرادتها أو رغماً عنها أن تضعَ قدمَها في ذلك البحر، قاطعةً المضائقَ من هناك و متوغِّلةً في عُمُقِ الجنوبِ الدافئ حيث تسبح و تُبْحر في مياهها الدافئة على مدار السنة و بحرية تامة.

    و لكن مفاتيحَ البحر الأسود كانت في يد سلاطين بني عثمان، و كانت الدبلوماسية الأوروبية عامة، و البريطانية-الفرنسية خاصة، تعمل بكلِّ دهائها و حنكتها على إبقاءِ تلك المفاتيح بعيدة عن متناولِ روسيا و إبعاد شبح الموت عن “الرجل المريض” لتأخير إنهيار تركيا لعدم معرفتها ما كان سيولد على أنقاض تركيا.  لهذا السبب ظلت تركيا باسطة جناحيها على ضفافِ المضائق لقرونٍ طويلة لأن أقوياء العالمِ لم يجدوا أسلوباً للتفاهم مع بعضهم حول ميراثِ بيزنطة… لقد طالبت روسيا مراراً بالقسطنطينية (إسطنبول) و مضائق البوسفور و الدردنيل على أساس كونها (حامية المسيحية) في الشرق. و كانت هذه الفكرة قد تولَّدت لديها بعد زواج الأمير الأكبر لعموم روسيا إيفان الثالث في 1472 ميلادية من الأميرة صوفيا باليولوك آخر أميرات الأمبراطورية البيزنطية التي سقطت في 29 أيار 1453 ميلادية.

    كانت الفكرة السائدة آنذاك أن موسكو هي روما الثالثة كمركزٍ للمسيحية الأوروبية (بعد سقوط روما الأصلية “الرومانية”  ثم روما الثانية، أي القسطنطينية “البيزنطية”) و لن تكون هناك روما رابعة أبداً…

 

تضارب المصالح الروسية-البريطانية

    عارض الدهاء الدبلوماسي البريطاني، معتمداً على القوة البحرية البريطانية آنئذٍ، مسألة نزول روسيا الى مياه البحر الأبيض المتوسط الدافئة عبر البحر الأسود و المضائق التركية لعدَّةِ أسبابٍ مهمَّة، و الأهم بالنسبة الى إنكلترا هي الهند و مُجْمَل الطرق البحرية و البرية التي توصل الجزيرة المنعزِلة الأم في أقصى الغربِ الأوروبي بالهند – دُرَّة تاجها –  و ليست المضائق. فالأهم و الحيوي بالنسبة الى إنكلترا كان الخليج العربي مع عموم الأرضِ العربية بإعتبارها نقطة العبور و الوصول الى الهند.

    كانت إنكلترا أمَّنَت سيطرَتَها على هذه الأراضي المترامية الأطراف عبرَ طريقين مهمّين أحدهما يوصل المحيط الهندي بالبحر الأبيض المتوسط (عبر البحر الأحمر و قناة السويس)، و أمّا الآخر فيوصل المحيط الهندي بإيران و بلاد ما بين النهرين (عبر الخليج العربي و شط العرب). و كان الحيوي الى إنكلترا هو المحيط الهندي، لأن الأمبراطورية الحقيقية تقع هناك. و الأهم هي تلك المتاريس – الخليج العربي و الأراضي العربية – التي تؤمِّن سيطرة إنكلترا على ذلك المحيط و تُبْعِد شبحَ أي قوةٍ أجنبية عن تلك المنطقة. و ظل هدف بريطانيا الرئيس حتى بداية الحرب العالمية الأولى إستقطاع منطقة البصرة لأغراضٍ أستراتيجية تتعلق بحماية مشارف الهند. و لكن قوات الإحتلال البريطانية التي إحتلّت البصرة عام 1914 سرعان ما أكتشفت بطلان خططها العسكرية القائمة على تقسيم العراق وفق الخطوط القديمة التي كانت تقوم عليها السيطرة البريطانية على الهند. فبدأت بعد ذلك الجهود العسكرية لإحتلال بغداد و بقية إمتدادات وادي الرافدين و تحويلها الى مركز إمبراطورية بريطانية جديدة في المنطقة العربية و أسيا الوسطى لتأمين طريق الهند عبر الخليج العربي .

    لقد وافقت إنكلترا في 1915 على أن تجلب روسيا الى القسطنطينية و أرمينيا التركية لأن روسيا كانت قد وافقت بدورها أن لا تنزل الى الخليج العربي و لا الى مناطق أبعد من أرمينيا التركية، أي الى العالم العربي. فقد كانت روسيا قد وعدت  في مذكرتها في 4 آذار 1915، و في مقابل أن تحصل على القسطنطينية و مضائق البوسفور و الدردنيل من الحلفاء، أن يكون بإمكان الدولتين الحليفتين، إنكلترا و فرنسا، أن تطمئنّا بأنهما ستلقيان من الحكومة القيصرية المعاملة نفسها لتحقيق أهدافهما المستقبلية في المناطق المختلفة من الإمبراطورية العثمانية أو في أماكن إخرى.

    كانت ايران تأتي في المرتبة الأولى من هذه “المناطق المختلفة” و “الأماكن الأخرى”. إذ بعد صراعاتٍ طويلة حولها (و كذلك أفغانستان و التيبت) وقَّعَت كل من إنكلترا و روسيا على المعاهدة الإنكليزية-الروسية في 1907. و بموجب تلك المعاهدة قّسِّمَت ايران الى ثلاثة مناطق، المنطقة الشمالية الواقعة تحت النفوذ الروسي (على مساحة 790 ألف كيلومتر مربع) و المنطقة الجنوبية الواقعة تحت النفوذ الإنكليزي (على مساحة 355 ألف كيلو متر مربع) و المنطقة الوسطى أو المحايدة  (على مساحة 490 ألف كيلو متر مربع).

    بعد أن وافقت كل من إنكلترا و فرنسا بمذكرتيهما الى روسيا في آذار 1915 على التنازل عن القسطنطينية و المضائق الى الأخيرة، و وافقتا أيضاً أن تُعطى الحلول النهائية حول ما ستنالان هما (في المناطق المختلفة من الإمبراطورية العثمانية أو في أماكن أخرى)…فقط في نهاية الحرب و في أثناء معاهدة السلام التي يجب أن تُدْرَسَ مجتمعة و تُوَقَّعَ في الوقت نفسه من قِبَلِ الحلفاء الثلاثة. و لكن أنكلترا من دون أن تنتظر نهاية الحرب، و من غير الحلفاء الثلاثة مجتمعين، و لوحدها فقط، و كأنما دُرِسِت مطالبها من قبل الحلفاء، تقدَّمَت منفردة من روسيا و حاولت أن تحصل عليه سلفاً ما كانت ستحصل عليها من ايران في الغد…فأكدت الحكومة الروسية و على لسان وزير خارجيتها س. سازونوف في 20 آذار 1915 الى لندن على موافقة الحكومة القيصرية على إلحاق المنطقة المحايدة الإيرانية الى المنطقة الإنكليزية القائمة.

    و بدورها فعلت فرنسا الشيء نفسه.

    ففي 16 آذار 1915 تقدمت منفردة من روسيا طالبة منها موافقتها على اعتبار مناطق كيليكيا و سورية مع فلسطين ممتلكات فرنسية في نهاية الحرب بعد أن ضمنت موافقتها على التنازل عن القسطنطينية و المضائق التركية الى روسيا.

    لقد جرت كل هذه الأمور بسرعة و من دون إضاعة وقت و أدّت الى ولادة إتفاقية سايكس-بيكو مباشرة من الرحم السياسي لمذكرات آذار 1915 بين الحلفاء و تعرَّضت تركيا الآسيوية الى تقسيم جوهري حتى قبل إنتهاء الحرب.

    في الواقع كان على هذه الإتفاقية أن تولد عند إنتهاء الحرب بالنصر لصالح الحلفاء، و لكن ولادتها كانت مُبَكِّرَة نوعاً ما في ربيع 1916. ففي تلك الأثناء إستسلم الجيش الإنكليزي بقيادة الجنرال شارلز تاونزند في معركة (كوت العمارة) في العراق الى قائد الجيش العثماني خليل باشا بينما كانت الجيوش الروسية المنتصرة تتقدم نحو بلاد ما بين النهرين بعد أن نزلت من سفوح بيتليس و موش متوجهة الى الموصل و بغداد و داحرة أمامها الجيوش التركية.

    لقد عجَّلَ الحلفاء من التوقيع على الإتفاقية الخاصة بتقسيم تركيا لخوفهم من قيام الجيش القفقازي باحتلال الموصل و بغداد و المناطق الواقعة على الخليج العربي و تثبيت أقدامه هناك حيث مصالح إنكلترا و فرنسا. فبعد أن إتفقت كل من إنكلترا و فرنسا مسبقاً على هذه المسألة الحيوية، قدّمتا مشروع التقسيم في 9 آذار 1916. و بعد مقايضاتٍ و تصحيحاتٍ معيّنة تم التوقيع على الإتفاقية رسمياً بين روسيا و فرنسا في 26 نيسان (بموافقة إنكلترا) و بين إنكلترا و فرنسا في 9 و 16 أيار (بموافقة روسيا).

 

توزيع الحصص

    كانت بريطانيا ستحصل بموجب هذه الإتفاقية على بلاد ما بين النهرين مع بغداد (و لكن دون الموصل)، و أعتبر الجزء الأكبر من الجزيرة العربية منطقة نفوذٍ إنكليزية، مع تدويل فلسطين و حصول إنكلترا على موانئ حيفا و عكا.

    و أما حصة فرنسا فكانت سوريا مع كيليكيا و الجزء الأكبر من كردستان و حتى قسماً من الأناضول الشرقية. و كمنطقة نفوذ حصلت فرنسا على المنطقة الواقعة من نجد نحو الشمال و كذلك منطقة الموصل (مع الأراضي الغنية بالنفط).

    و أما روسيا، فبعد إكمال مسألة القسطنطينية و المضائق التي حصلت عليهما بإتفاقية خاصة، فقد حصلت على مناطق طرابزون، أرضروم، بايزيد، فان و بيتليس (مع ضواحيها)، جزء من كردستان و شريط من الأرض يمتدُّ على ساحل البحر الأسود من طرابزون الى الغرب مع بقاء الإمتيازات الفرنسية في سكة الحديد الموجودة في الأراضي التي أصبحت من حصة روسيا. وهكذا بقيت روسيا بعيدة عن منطقة الخليج العربي و المحيط الهندي بعد أن ضَمَنَتْ مبتغاها في إمتلاك القسطنطينية و المضائق….

 

    شاركت إيطاليا مع الثلاثة في هذا التقسيم بعد عدة أشهر، أي بعد أن أعلنت الحرب على ألمانيا في آب 1916، و حصلت ايطاليا بموجب الإتفاقية على مناطق آتاليا، قونية، آيدن و إزمير. ففي إتفاقية سان جان دي موريين تم خلق نطاق أخضر (آنطاليا و إزمير)  لإيطاليا، ثم وَعَدَت إنكلترا و فرنسا اليونانيين بإزمير … و بعدها رمى مصطفى كمال اليونانيين في إزمير في البحر بمساعدة الحلفاء أنفسهم …

    عند سماعه عن هذه الإتفاقية لأول مرة هتف الرئيس الأمريكي وودرو ويلسون قائلاً: “يتراءى لي كأنما الحديث يدور عن شركة جديدة لبيع الشاي، سايكس-بيكو”.

خاتمة

    كانت الدول الإستعمارية آنئذٍ تضحك على ذقونِ بعضها البعض حفاظاً على مصالحها الخاصة، و لم تتوضح صورة هذه الألاعيب المعقدة أبداً كما وضحت في أثناء الحرب العالمية الأولى. و أما نحن فأصبحنا على بيِّنة من تلك الألاعيب فقط عن طريق الثورة الروسية. ففي 25 تشرين الأول 1917 إستولى البلاشفة على السلطة في روسيا بانقلابٍ قاموا به، و في 27 منه انتخب مؤتمر السوفييت الثاني لعموم روسيا مجلس المفوَّضين الشعبيين فقرر المؤتمر في جلسته الأولى نشر جميع المعاهدات السرية للدول الإستعمارية كافة. و بدأتِ الحكومة الجديدة العمل بسرعة في هذا المجال، و لم تمضِ ستة أسابيع على هذا القرار حتى كانت الوثائق السرية قد نُشِرَت ْفي سبعة أجزاء تحوي على أكثر من مائة معاهدة و إتفاقية و حلف و غيرها. و نُشِرَت في هذا السياق أيضاً المعاهدات السرية كافة المتعلقة بتقسيم تركيا…

    في عام 1924 نَشَرَ الكرملين هذه المعاهدات الأخيرة مع إضافاتٍ مختلفة عليها في كتابٍ ضخمٍ و ثمين تحت إسم “الدول الأوروبية و تركيا في أثناء الحرب العالمية الأولى. تقسيم تركيا الآسيوية مع الوثائق السرية لوزارة الخارجية السابقة”. و قد ضمَّ المؤلَّفُ أيضاً خريطة نادرة تتناول تقسيم تركيا رسمها السير مارك سايكس، وزير خارجية إنكلترا آنذاك، و جورج بيكو، نظيره الفرنسي. لم تؤخذ الخريطة الأصلية من دواوين وزارة الخارجية الروسية و لكن تم تصوير الخريطة الملحقة بالكتاب من جديد من الأُنموذج الموجود في أوراق السفارة الفرنسية في بيتروكراد، و هي تتناول صيف 1917 عندما كانت الدول الكبرى تفاوض ايطاليا حول تقسيم ممتلكات تركية الآسيوية ثانية…و الغريب في الأمر أن المناطق الفرنسية و الإنكليزية و الإيطالية فقط حُدِّدَت على النسخة الأصلية من الخريطة، أما النطاق الروسي…فلم يُحَدَّد عليها.

 

آرا دمبكجيان

 المصادر

1-      نجم محمود، المقايضة: برلين-بغداد، منشورات الغد، لندن، 1991.

2-      جريدة “الأخبار”، العدد 32، كلينديل/كاليفورنيا، 1997.

3-      فاهان نافاسارتيان، المضائق: البوسفور و الدردنيل،  باريس، 1947.

 

Ahmadinejad cancels visit to Turkey

By

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has canceled his visit to Turkeyfollowing Iran’s military chief of staff’s remarks over Patirots that are being deployed on Turkish soil, daily Hürriyet reported today.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had invited the Iranian president to the Central Anatolian province of Konya for a ceremony marking the 739th anniversary of the passing of the great Sufi mystic Rumi.

The planned deployment of NATO Patriot missiles along Turkey’s border with Syria could lead to a “world war” that would threaten Europe as well, Iran’s military chief of staff was quoted as saying yesterday.

Erdoğan and Ahmadinejad were expected to discuss a wide range of issues, including Syria and Turkey’s decision to further cut the oil it purchases from Iran as part of Washington’s sanctions.

Iraqi Airways takes delivery of Boeing 777

By

Iraqi Airways on Saturday took delivery of a Boeing 777 passenger jet, one of dozens of aircraft Iraq has ordered in a bid to rebuild the airline, a transport ministry official said.

“A Boeing 777 aircraft arrived today,” said Karim al-Nuri, an adviser to the transport minister, adding that it was the first of 30 aircraft Iraq has ordered from the US firm.

“The US embassy in Baghdad worked closely with Iraqi Airways and Boeing to complete the sale,” the embassy said, adding that Ambassador Stephen Beecroft attended a ceremony marking the plane’s delivery.

Iraqi Airways, which is one of the oldest in the Middle East, was founded in 1938, and became a state-owned firm in 1946.

It has faced a number of problems in more recent years.

The company stopped working in 1991 after Saddam Hussein’s disastrous invasion of neighbouring Kuwait, which turned Iraq into an international pariah.

In 2000, it resumed operations by restarting domestic flights, officials in the company said.

The company resumed international flights to Jordan and Iran in October 2004, more than a year after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

A dispute with Kuwait Airways over aircraft and parts it says Iraq plundered from the emirate during its invasion saw British authorities seize the passport of Iraqi Airways chief executive Kifah Hassan Jabbar and impound the plane on which he flew to London in April 2010.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s spokesman said in March that an agreement was reached to solve the issue for $500 million (382 million euros).

Dr. Taner Akcam: Turkey and the Armenian Ghost (“Why do we Turks continue to deny the genocide?”)

By

Source: www.armenianweekly.com

The Armenian Weekly publishes the full text of a talk delivered by Dr. Taner Akcam (Clark University) during a panel on ‘Overcoming Genocide Denial’ organized by Fordham Law School’s Leitner Center for International Law and Justice on Dec. 4. Speakers included Akcam, Gregory Stanton (George Mason University), and Sheri Rosenberg (Cardozo Law School).

“Why do we Turks continue to deny the genocide?”

Or, stated another way, Why do we Turks feel like lightening has struck our bones whenever the topic is brought up?

I’ve been dedicated to researching the subject of the Armenian Genocide since 1990, more than 20 years. This question keeps getting asked over and over again with unerring consistency. The question is a simple one, but as the years have passed my response to it has changed. At first, I tried to explain the denial through the concept of “continuity,” namely, governmental continuity from the Ottoman Empire through the Turkish Republic. Another way of formulating this thesis might be by titling it, “The Dilemma of Making Heroes into Villains.” The argument is very simple: The Turkish Republic was actually established by the Union and Progress Party (Ittihat ve Terakki), the architects of the Armenian Genocide of 1915. The founding cadres of Turkey were essentially Union and Progress members. And so, a significant number of the founding cadres of Turkey were either directly involved in the Armenian Genocide or they enriched themselves by looting Armenian properties. But these individuals were also our national heroes—they are the founding fathers of our nation. If Turkey acknowledges the genocide, we would have to accept that a number of our national heroes and founding fathers were either murderers, thieves, or both. This is the real dilemma.

Those individuals, as we were taught in school, were men who “created our nation and the state out of nothing.” They define who we are. This is true not only for the early generation of the Turkish nation, but also for the opposition movements of the country, including the largest wave of a democratic-progressive movement Turkey had ever seen: the 1968 student protest movement. The representatives of this wave and its political organizations strongly identified themselves with the founding cadres of the republic. They called themselves, in analogy with the founding fathers, the second “Kuvayi–Milliyeciler” or “national front,” a specific term that we use only to define our founding cadres. This strong identification with the founding fathers was not particular to the progressive ‘68 generation. It has been true for any of the groups active in Turkey: nationalist, Islamicist, or other right wing circles.

In other words, in order to accept the genocide, in our present state, we would have to deny our own national identity, as it exists today. That is a very difficult task, an almost impossible one, and very destructive. Instead of dealing with the identity crisis and the emotional and political fallout that will result from accepting the genocide, think about it: Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to just deny it?

I started to modify my response to the question “Why do Turks deny the genocide?” over time. I added one more reason for Turkish denial. It is also a very simple argument. If Turkey accepts that the genocide took place, it will be obligated to pay reparations. The argument has some wider consequences than whether the events of 1915 should be termed “genocide.” Let’s assume that 1915 was not genocide, and imagine that the Union and Progress Party had deported the Armenians from a cold, mountainous, and infertile area to a sunny warm and fertile region; pretend, in other words, that the Armenians had been dispatched to Florida. However, everything that these people owned was confiscated in the process and not a single penny was paid back to them. Even if you refuse to accept the events of 1915 as genocide, you have to accept the fact that the country of Turkey today was formed on the seizure of Armenian assets, and now sits on top of that wealth. As a result, if you accept and acknowledge that something unjust happened in 1915 in Turkey, you have to pay back compensation. Therefore, in order to avoid doing that, denying genocide outright makes a whole lot of sense.

I have continued to add some additional factors to explain Turkish denials, such as the phenomenon that occurs when you repeat a lie. Even in ordinary daily life, how easy is it to reverse yourself once you’ve told a lie? The lie about genocide has a history of decades and has become calcified. A state that’s been lying for 90 years can’t simply reverse course. Even when you know you’re telling untruths, they acquire the veneer of reality after so many years.

But these points are only useful for explaining why the state has continued to deny the genocide. As the years passed, I started to write that the term “Turkish denial” was inadequate for fully explaining the situation. I questioned the validity of the use of the term “Turks” to reflect a homogeneous entity that defines not only the people of Turkey but the state of Turkey, as well. I suggested making a distinction between state policy and the attitude of the people of Turkey towards genocide. I argued that the term “denial” was adequate in explaining state policy, but not that of society. The attitude of society should more accurately be portrayed as one of ignorance, apathy, fatalism, reticence, and silence, rather than denial.

Turkish society is not a monolithic block, and can be considered analogous to a train. It’s made up of lots of different cars, and each car represents a different sub-cultural ethnicity with a different attitude towards what happened in 1915. I’ve stated many times that a large portion of Kurds, Dersimians, and Alewites have accepted the reality of what happened in 1915, and that the real problem is that these different groups have not been able to express their thoughts on it in a way that was forceful, firm, and especially written. I used the terms silence and avoidance not only in the sense of a single attitude that is jointly held by all segments of society, but also to mean not openly taking a stance toward the official state narrative. One has to accept that all of these distinctions are important, and perhaps vital, to understanding the development of civil society in Turkey today, but that they are still not enough to explain why denialism is such a dominant part of the cultural landscape in Turkey.

So, my thinking has begun to change, yet again, recently. I don’t mean to say that my previous explanations were necessarily incorrect. Just the opposite: I still believe that these factors play a major role in the denial of the Armenian Genocide. However, I have now started to think that the matter seems to have roots in something much deeper and almost existentialist, which covers the state as much as the society. The answer to the question seems to lie in a duality between existence and non-existence—or, as Hamlet would say, “to be or not to be.” I believe our existence as a state and a society translates into their—Christians in Anatolia—non-existence, or not-being. To accept what happened in 1915 means you have to accept the existence of them—Christians—on Turkish territory, which is practically like announcing our non-existence, because we owe our being to their non-existence. Let me explain.

In order to provide more clarity, I would like to introduce Habermas to the topic. Habermas points out that within the social tissue and institutions of societies resides a “secret violence,” and this “secret violence” creates a structure of communication that the entire society identifies with.[1] Through this way of “collective communication,” the restrictions and exclusion of certain topics from public discourse are effectively institutionalized and legitimized. What is meaningful to note here is that this structure is not imposed on the society by the rulers, but is accepted and internalized by those who are ruled. There is a silent consensus in the society.

I would like to borrow another term from author Elias Siberski to shed some light on this condition–“communicative reality” (die kommunikative Wirklichkeit). Siberski uses this term to describe a very important characteristic of secretive organizations.2 According to Siberski, secretive organizations create an internal reality through a method of communication that is totally different from the real world. The situation in Turkey today resembles this very closely. As a society, we are like a secret organization. Since the establishment of our republic we have created a “communicative reality,” which sets out our way of thinking and existence over “state and nation.” It gives shape to our emotions and defining belief systems, or, in other words, our entire social-cultural net of relations. In sum, the things that make us who we are or at a minimum who we think we are. What is important to note is the gap between this “communicative reality” and actual reality.

In the end, this “communicative reality” has given us speakable and unspeakable worlds, and has created a collective secret that covers our entire society like a glove. It has created one big gigantic black hole. We are, today, a reality that possesses a “black hole.” This existence of a huge “black hole,” or the possession of a “collective secret,” or creation of a “coalition of silence”—these are the terms that define who we are… We simply eradicated everything Christian from this reality. This is how we teach Ottoman history in our schools, this is how we produce intellectual-cultural works about our society.

My opinion is that the secret behind the denial of the Armenian Genocide, or the unspeakableness of it, lies somewhere in here. What happened in 1915 is Turkish society’s collective secret, and genocide has been relegated to the “black hole” of our societal memory. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey, all of us, rightists and leftists, Muslim, Alewite, Kurds, and Turks, have created a collective “coalition of silence” around this subject, and we don’t like being reminded of this hidden secret that wraps around us like a warm, fuzzy blanket. The reminders have an annoying irritating quality and we feel confronted by a situation that leaves us unsure of what to do or say.

Because, if we are forced to confront our history, everything—our social institutions, mentalities, belief systems, culture, and even the language we use—will be open to question. The way a society perceives itself is going to be questioned from top to bottom. As a result, we don’t appreciate the “reminders.” We view reminders as “force,” and react quite negatively to them. All of us, rightist and leftist, search for excuses, but we together seem to be crying out, as if in chorus, “Here we are minding our own business, not bothering anyone, when you appeared out of nowhere. Where did you come from?” It is as if we, as a nation, are making this collective statement: “If you think we are going to destroy the social-cultural reality we created with such great care over 95 years, with one swipe of a pen, think again!”

The Armenian Genocide is a part of a more general framework that is directly related to our existence. The republic and the society of Turkey today have been constructed upon the removal of Christians—the destruction of an existence on a territory that we call our homeland. Since we have established our existence upon the non-existence of another, every mention of that existence imparts fear and anxiety in us. The difficulty we have in our country with speaking about the Armenian issue lies within this existence-non-existence duality. If you’re looking for an example that comes close to this, you don’t need to look far: The history of the Native Americans in the U.S. bears similarities.

So, I think we have to reverse the question: The central question is not why Turkey denies the genocide, but whether we the people of Turkey are ready, as a state and as a society, to deny our present state of existence. It seems that the only way we can do that is by repudiating how we came to be and by creating a new history of how we came to exist. Are we capable of doing that? That’s the true question.

Sargsyan Meets Biden at White House

By

WASHINGTON—Armenia’s Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan met with Vice-President Joe Biden at the White House on Thursday to discuss US-Armenia relations.

As part of his visit to the US, the Prime Minister was in Washington for meetings. During the White House sit down the two parties discussed current reform programs proposed by the Armenian government.

Later that day, Sargsyan met with Chief Executive of the Millennium Challenge Corporation Daniel Yohannes to discuss Armenia’s future involvement with the program.

On December 13, Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan called at the White House as part of his working visit to the United States where he met with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden to discuss prospects of U.S. – Armenian relations. The parties took the opportunity to refer to the reform program of the Armenian government.

Later today, Tigran Sargsyan met with Millennium Challenge Corporation Program Chief Executive Officer Daniel Yohannes to discuss the possibility of Armenia’s future involvement in the program.

The Prime Minister-led government delegation will be back to Yerevan on December 14.

Armenia is currently not eligible for receiving additional U.S. economic assistance under the Millennium Challenge Account, a program designed to reward good governance and reforms around the world.

The U.S. government approved $236 million worth of MCA assistance to Armenia in 2006 to finance a rural development plan submitted by Yerevan. In June 2008, Washington scrapped a $67 million segment of the aid package, which envisaged the reconstruction of hundreds of kilometers of rural roads, citing Armenia’s shortcomings in meeting MCC markers related to socio-economic reforms.

UK Ambassador Katherine Leach: We are two sets of energy thinking about Armenia

By

December 09, 2012 | 18:37

By Anna Ghazaryan

Armenian News-NEWS.am launches a series of interviews with foreign diplomats working in Armenia. Ambassadors will reveal the secrets of their diplomatic work and speak about the difficulties they are faced withб while moving to a new country. In our first interview UK Ambassador to Armenia Katherine Leach speaks about her work and experience as a diplomat.

About diplomacy

What do you think is the most difficult thing about being a diplomat?

I was going to say people might imagine the most difficult thing is moving around, constantly having to start everything from scratch in a new country, but that is the part I enjoy the most. The hardest thing is to think imaginatively about what you can really achieve in a country because often governments and diplomats are quite unwilling to take risks. I think the most difficult thing is to look with fresh eyes at the situation and try to give more challenging advice in your government and try to change policy of your government.

Have you ever made a bold move?

There was one occasion that sticks in my mind when I was working in Japan, through my help we managed to encourage development of a business network who wanted to lobby the government for more ambitious actions on green energy, environmentally friendly energy. It was important as Japanese business is often quite cautious and conservative and for businesses to come together and say: “we must much more dynamic and aggressive in lobbying the government on the issue” was surprising. I felt I made a contribution to it.

Do you think there are any words the diplomat must never say?

I think we try not to be rude, we try to be polite. I definitely say ‘yes’ more often.

What would you do if you were not a diplomat?

The sensible option is to be a lawyer. A fantasy option was to work for a charity which buys land and old houses and then opens them for public. It is a way of preserving England’s countryside.

I used to work for environmental charity. It had million members and raised money to buy wild places to protect them. I did that before joining the foreign office.

Different countries

Do you think you must set a certain goal coming to a new country?

I think it is always good to try to set goals. When we arrived in Armenia we had a clear goal to improve the relationship between our two countries, particularly on the commercial side, to promote business links between the two countries.

You have worked in different countries. What do you think can your way of thinking change while moving to a new country? Do you take something form a new culture?

The core of you stays the same. But, in each country you live in, you appreciate different things which you do not see in your own country or which perhaps your country has lost. I see in Armenia tremendous hospitality and generosity towards strangers which in some ways we have lost in UK.  In Japan what I valued was enormous politeness towards people and culture of respect. The similarity for example between Japan and Armenia is an importance of family, parents, grandparents. We have lost that in the UK.

About Armenia

Do you remember the first impression about Armenia?

What struck me was how warm and funny the people were, the sense of humor. The landscape, if you are from south of rural England, a place with many farms, you feel like you are up in the mountains.

Do you know any words in Armenian?

I always try to learn the language. My Armenian is not as good as it should be because I speak Russian and it is easy to communicate in Russian. My plan for the next year is to focus on Armenian. The phrase I know is: “Shutov aveli lav klini”(It would be better soon).

What things do you really miss being out of UK?

I miss some television programs and the sausages. I miss my friends and family. We have beautiful countryside and old houses looked after by charity and are open to general public. Old houses with large gardens, I love a British garden.

Two Ambassadors – advantages and disadvantages

You are appointed as two ambassadors. What advantages and disadvantages does your job have?

The huge advantage is you have two brains, two sets of energy thinking about Armenia and the embassy. Being an Ambassador is actually quite a lonely job. I am having someone else with a slightly different point of view who you can discuss things with. It generates more ideas. The main disadvantage it is quite unusual, people are a little bit surprised. But I hope once they meet both of us, they will understand it is no like having half an ambassador, it is like having two.

French Ambassador Henri Reynaud: Armenia is so hospitable and attractive that I do not miss France

By

December 15, 2012 | 10:00

By Anna Ghazaryan

Who is your hero in politics? Is there any political figure you would like to ask for advice?

I would not mention a hero but I admire politicians who had the courage to reject the inevitability of the events, to change the course of history, sometimes making decisions against public opinion. I mean Robert Schuman who extended a hand to Germany in 1950 and only five years after a war, which destroyed the continent, the foundation of Europe was laid. I am speaking about Charles de Gaulle, an architect of the Franco-German truce with Konrad Adenauer. Both of them (one was 87 years old and the other – 73) refused to continue the process when the past was destroying the future, and relied on a mission of the Franco-German Youth Office. I am referring to Anwar Sadat, who established peace with Israel. I admire the men and women who have dedicated their lives to the struggle for freedom and democracy, such as Nelson Mandela, or sacrificed their lives, Jean Moulin, Misak Manushian, Munich students Hans and Sophie Scholl.

Do you think a diplomat must set a certain goal coming to a new country?

For Ambassador it is important to set goals. The objectives must materialize through an action plan and get approval of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The goals are aimed at improving, expanding and enriching the relationship between his and other state, contributing, if necessary, to promotion of the principles of the UN and international organizations. The diplomacy is set to create a better, fairer, more friendly and secure world. In case of Armenia it is implemented with the help of the Eastern Partnership project. However, relations between France and Armenia are marked by significant meaning deeply rooted in long history.

What do you think is the most difficult thing about being a diplomat?

Diplomacy is a profession dealing with all the areas and has many sides. This explains the interest and at the same time difficulty of the profession. Ambassador must be able to respond to challenges quickly understanding the problems of a country he is working in. You must always clearly make difference between important and unimportant, focus on priorities. Besides, he must properly understand the culture of the country. It will make his contacts easy and provide an opportunity to be confident that his steps are perceived in a right way.

What are you missing being out of France?

In fact, the situation is different depending on the country. However, to feel good in your new country, you need at least two things: eagerness to love it and interest to understand it. Armenia is so hospitable and attractive due to its history, culture and dynamics, that I personally do not miss France.

What was your first impression about Armenia?

First of all I was surprised to see some similarities: a southern country, importance given to a family, and the most important – Armenians’ positive attitude to overcoming the challenges. It can be labeled as faith in the future contrary to difficulties. The Armenian people love life because they know its cost.

What would you do if you were not a diplomat?

Being a diplomat, I am quite satisfied with my personal and professional life. If I were not a diplomat, I would prefer university professor career, or I would be a journalist or a lawyer.

Turkish Military slaughter on Kurdish people continue, 42 PKK militants killed in eastern Turkey

By

Some 42 members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) have been killed in operations in the eastern province of Hakkari’s Şemdinli district, according to private broadcaster Kanal D.

The Turkish Armed Forces started the operations in the area following a tip on a possible attack the PKK was planning to launch on a Şemdinli police station.

Nearly 90 militants were approaching the station when Turkish Armed Forces intervened, killing 42 of the fighters.

Two more militants surrendered to the security forces.

Intel to Open Research Center in Armenia

By

The Intel Corp.’s Vice-President John Daviews was on hand on the as the ArmTech Congress 2012 continued at Stanford University.

Speaking at the opening session of the conference US Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern praised Armenia’s information technology development.

“When I arrived in Armenia, I had no idea about the achievements in the IT sphere. The creative mind is the key to the future of Armenia. The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued a report based on UNESCO data, according to which Armenia is the first among CIS member states with the number of inventions per capita,” said Heffern/

Ambassador Heffern expressed confidence that those innovations can find their proper place in humanitarian and commercial enterprises and ArmTech is a brilliant opportunity for paving the way for the inventions.

Among other IT leaders in attendance were Vice-President of the Synopsis Company and Vice-President of D-Link Company also who also spoke at the conference.

The Corporación América and the Armenian Government agreed to open a factory in Armenia to produce chips. Minister of Economy Tigran Davtyan signed the memorandum on behalf of the Armenian Government.