By Nvard Chalikyan

Panorama.am presents an interview with Turkish historian and prominent expert on the Armenian Genocide Taner Akcam. Dr. Akcam comments on the condolences offered by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on April 24 and on the article by Ahmed Davutoglu on the possible reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey, none of which however referred to 1915 as Genocide but instead used denialist terms such as “shared pain”. Dr. Akcam also comments on the statement made by the President of Armenia by which he invited the President of Turkey to visit Armenia to commemorate genocide centennial in 2015.

Dr. Akcam, Ahmed Davutoglu has recently prepared an article on the Armenian-Turkish conflict representing his vision of “resolution”. How do you assess Erdoghan’s and Davutoglu’s responses to the cause of the Armenian Genocide? 

First, we have to accept that the AKP party, which has been in power since 2002, wants to make some changes in the traditional policy of denial. Davutoglu has been repeating words of similar content for years. Also, with the Prime Minister’s most recent offering of condolences, it has become apparent that a new situation has emerged. This new situation needs to be addressed at three levels; the first level has to do with the Prime Minister offering the Armenians his condolences for the losses they experienced in 1915; the second level involves the notion of free speech within Turkey; the last level has to do with the what the real solution to 1915 genocide, namely the question of justice.

First, with regards to the first level: in my opinion, the fact that the Prime Minister offered his condolences is important, regardless of the motivations or purpose. It brings the discussion down to humanistic level. Of course, the Prime Minister does not offer his condolences solely to the Armenians. He offers the same condolences to the grandchildren of all those who perished during the First World War. Despite all the ways in which it can be criticized, the fact that this condolence breaks the subject down to a more human level is extremely important for Turkey. The dominant discourse within the statement, I believe will create a positive addition to the genocide discussion in Turkey. We can now say that those circles, which previously had fostered animosity against and refused to listen to critically thinking individuals such as myself, will now be able to listen with their ears and minds slightly more open.

The second level has to do with the issue of free speech; I can say the following with regards to this topic: as is widely known, up until Hrant Dink’s assassination in January 2007, it was impossible to freely discuss and debate about 1915 within Turkey. Those who voiced opposition against the official position of the government were seen as traitorous and had to face attacks and threats. In fact, up until the 2010 investigations and trials against the terror group known as Ergenekon, which had organized within the armed forces and bureaucracy of Turkey, individuals who talked openly about the subject of the Armenian Genocide were faced with a serious risk to their life. Hrant’s assassination, the countless trials against intellectuals, and the smear campaigns against us in the daily newspapers are just some examples of this threatening atmosphere.

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people unexpectedly took part in Hrant Dink’s funeral procession; the fact that members of the Ergenekon terror organization – which had led violence and all other sorts of campaigns against individuals who had opinions on the Armenian Genocide critical to that of the government – were arrested, the most prominent of whom were Doğu Perinçek, Kemal Kerinçsiz and Veli Küçük; all of these events moved Turkey into a relative atmosphere of freedom. After the court case I personally brought to court and won against the Turkish government in the European Court of Human Rights, the Article TCK 301 is no longer effective in Turkish law. In summary, after the year of 2010, we can comfortably claim that it is possible to freely discuss the 1915 genocide within Turkey. Since this day, countless television programs have been aired, newspaper articles have been written and books have been published on this topic. Particularly, various Istanbul universities holding and organizing conferences to discuss genocide has become commonplace.

Hence, Erdogan’s statement summarizes and defers to exactly this point. With this statement, the government is publically “normalizing” those opinions with regards to the topic of 1915 that it had, until 2010, refused to view as legitimate and had regarded to as treacherous. There are, of course, those individuals who see this step as an indicator of the government’s grace and who would like to thank the government for it. I, on the other hand, do not see it as that. I recognize and accept that it is an important change; but if we should give praise and proper acknowledgement to anyone, I believe it should be the tens of thousands of individuals who marched out on the streets. We have reached this point in our history because of the struggle of these individuals. The government is in a way registering and, in turn, approving and confirming the place that we have reached. Now, I will accept that this move by the government is a new step and a new development for Turkey. At the very least, our opinions on the topic of genocide will no longer be prosecuted, labeled as treacherous, or anything of the sort. However, is this not something that should exist within every democratic country in this world, anyway?

I’ll repeat – the fact that the government has accepted that 1915 should and can be discussed freely within Turkey is a positive and good step. But the credit for this should not go to the government, but has to be given to those people who have given a true fight to make this happen.

The third level has to do with the question of justice. In other words, it has to do with the question of how to solve this issue of genocide and what the government has to do with regards to this. With this level, there has been no change in the government’s policies. The AKP administration is continuing the 90-year-long denial politics. The “just memory” thesis, which Davutoglu has time and time again said and the Prime Minister has repeated, is not a very new one. The government has given up its position of blaming Armenians for genocide through softening its language, however the concept of both Muslims and Armenians having experienced loss and suffering in 1915 has been a repeated discourse for 90 years. For this reason, the extreme nationalist and aggressive denial period, as represented by individuals such as Yusuf Halaçoğlu and Şükrü Elekdağ, may have ended, but there has been no change in the discourse.

There is one last point that needs to be added; the fact that the Prime Minister’s last statement is being met with suspicion has legitimate ground. Many people have a serious suspicion that this statement is a simple repeating of what Turkey has been doing for years. In previous years, Turkey had also put on a demeanor to make it appear as if it were changing certain things with regards to its denial politics, specifically due to foreign pressures. The real purpose, however, was not to make steps towards change, but only to gain time or get rid of the “pressure nuisance.” Once the danger of increased pressure had been removed, the familiar position was once again resumed.

The most widely known example of this was the initiative known as TARC (Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Committee). As an attempt to prevent the French Parliament and the U.S. Congress to pass genocide bills within their own respective legislatures, a very frustrated Turkey launched the TARC initiative to demonstrate that they “have started negotiations with the Armenians.” And now, in 2015, when the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is upon us, the argument that this last step by the Turkish government was intended to lessen the upcoming pressures in 2015 can be easily advanced. Because Turkey has time and time again engaged in such tactics, there are countless reasons for people to be suspicious.

The real question is this: is this step only the beginning of progress for Turkey or is this the only step Turkey is going to take with regards to 1915? For now, we do not know the answer. However, if we look at various declarations by government officials since Erdogan’s statement, the most prominent of which is Davutoglu’s piece in The Guardian, we can see that the government’s general attitude is one that says, “this is as far as we go on the topic of 1915.”

On the eve of 100th anniversary of Armenian Genocide what should the international community do with regards to Turkey and Armenia? What steps do you think need to be taken?

Turkey is expecting a huge tsunami in 2015 –regardless whether or not there will be one. For this reason, it wants to overcome this tsunami with as minimum amount of damage as possible. The last statement is a step in this direction and more could follow. Turkey could engage in some other attractive initiatives to make it appear as though it was heading in the direction of solving the problem. I am not saying that these initiatives need to necessarily be rejected outright. These could also be positive, support-worthy steps. As an example, there are reports being released in the media that the grandchildren of those Armenians that were living in Anatolia at the time of 1915 will receive automatic citizenship rights. It is indisputable that this would be a positive and good gesture. But it is important to remember that Turkey will be taking these steps with the mentality of “decreasing pressure” and “giving as little as possible.”

There is only one thing to do: to increase the internal and external pressures on Turkey. If the Turkish government has made some partial steps with regards to the 1915 issue, it is in large part because of internal and external pressures. The important thing here is to increase the collaboration between the diaspora Armenians and the movement that is growing up within the Turkish civil society. Unfortunately, there have not been many great successes so far in this regard. The diaspora Armenians have remained uninterested in the civil-democratic struggle within Turkey and have not been able to fully understand its importance. In return, the civil-democratic opposition in Turkey has also taken an unfavorable attitude towards the diaspora Armenians. In fact, it unfortunately has fostered almost similar thoughts towards diaspora Armenians as the government. The Turkish government has in turn used this situation to its advantage for years. It divided the Armenian community into two; it presented the Armenians within Turkey as “our good Armenians” and the diaspora Armenians as “uncompromising nationalist fanatics.”

We have to adapt a demeanor in outright opposition to this strategy. It is necessary to see that as the Diaspora and the Turkish civil-democratic opposition begin meeting on common ground, and as they combine their forces and objectives, they will be able to put more effective pressure on the Turkish government. For this reason, I call out to Armenians from both Armenia and the Diaspora: go to Turkey. I call out to the representatives of the civil-democratic opposition: go to Armenia and develop strong relations with the diaspora Armenians. Strength is born from collaboration. Together we are stronger.

What is your view regarding the fact that the President of Armenia has invited the President of Turkey to Armenia in 2015 to commemorate the Genocide centennial?

My understanding is that he is inviting the next Turkish President along with other world leaders to participate the 100th anniversary of the commemoration. Turkish President should accept the invitation if Turkey is serious about conveying the condolences to the descendants of victims of 1915. It could be a good gesture from the Turkish side demonstrating that they are serious with their statement. This could also be a good beginning for the normalization of relations between both countries as well as a good step towards solving the historic problems.

By Nvard Chalikyan