I've read a whole lot of articles lately about the Armenian Genocide decision that was narrowly passed yesterday by a House Panel, 23 to 22. I'm trying to figure out how best to distill everything for those of you who aren't as likely to read all the articles, but might like to know a little more about the situation. Now, I am no expert, mind you--so remember that as you read. But I do feel a little bit responsible to introduce you to some of these issues since I'm here, and you're...well, there. (Excepting my ELF counterparts, of course).
So, I am hoping I was pretty clear in my last post, but basically, here's the issue with the genocide decision. The problem is that historians do not completely agree on whether or not the enormous amount of Armenian deaths that took place during 1914 and 1922 (approx) were a genocide or not. Genocide requires a premeditated intention, wheras Turks argue that the deaths were casualties resulting from an internal civil war and the numbers of those who died were inflated by biased historians.
But let's look at the history. During the end of the Ottoman Empire, various political groups formed a coalition called the Young Turks, which were working towards the reformation of the Ottoman Empire's administration, particularly in response to the authoritarian Sultan Abdul-Hamid. The term Young Turks generally referred to members of the society that were liberal progressives and opposed to the status quo, and many members of this coalition were not only politicians, but also artists, scientists, administrators, etc. The Young Turks were led by three men who were sometimes referred to as the Three Pashas (Pasha=a civil or miltary official).
The Young Turks envisioned a secularist, constitutionalist state (unlike their current Islamic empire, ruled by a Sultan), ruled by a select group of elite individuals (not necessarily elected democratically, though). Their political activism and intellectualism helped pave the way for the revolution eventually brought about by Mustufa Ataturk, the founder (and national hero) of present-day, secularist and democratic Turkey.
During this tumultuous time (around 1913), an umbrella organization, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, )operated at the center of several progressive groups, including the Young Turks. It is CUP's agenda that is under a lot of scrutiny today. At one point, over 20 Christians were a part of their organization. But later, some historians say that CUP began to distrust the Armenians, who were also Christian, accusing them of siding with the Russian cause.
It was the Young Turks who were in power when Turkey aligned itself with Germany in World War 1, in March of 1914. The Turks attempted to attack primarily in the East, hoping to capture what is now Baku, Azerbaijan, in an attempt to make a major blow against the Russians. They were defeated. Most historians agree that during this time, there were some Armenians who formed guerilla groups within Turkey and cooperated with the Russians, including the brief takeover in 1915 of Van, an eastern Turkish city near the present-day Iranian border.
And then the big event happened, in April 24, 1915, a day Armenians commemorate year after year. In response to these small pockets of Armenian rebellion, several hundred Armenian intellectuals were rounded up, arrested, and executed. This was the beginning of what the Armenians refer to as the Armenian genocide.
What happens next is where the debate starts. According to many historians, Armenian soldiers were rounded up and sent to labor camps or murdered. Armenians were forced to turn in their weapons and their material wealth, and most had to flee their Turkish homes. Many were driven into the mountains where they starved or froze to death.
But the question is this: Was this an intentional campaign ordered and executed by the Young Turk regime? Or was it the result of a nation in war-time chaos, disparate groups acting out against the Armenians without any specific "intention"? Remember that intention is required to qualify the deaths as genocide.
Turks do not deny that Armenians died during this period. What they fight against is that pre-meditated intention; or in legal terms that we're familiar with, they argue that it wasn't first degree murder. There is also debate about how many Armenians were actually killed, as the number would determine the label as well. If there were many less murdered than the Armenians claim (they say that about 1.5 million died as a result of a Turkish campaign), then it's much easier to argue that the deaths were not a systematic attempt to wipe out the Armenian population, but the results of the civil war.
The American ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during that time had this to say about the situation: “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these [Armenian] deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.”
Though the CUP party was eventually dismantled, some of their philosphies formed what remain the current Turkish approach towards Armenia. Kazim Karabekir told Russian peacemakers that Armenians would not be allowed back into Turkish lands as they had died of "a rebellion of their own making". Another disturbing quote comes from a Turkish historian who specializes in the Armenian conflict, Taner Akçam. Akçam identified four definitions of Turkey during Ataturk's rule, which he posits have been passed down through generations. The second of those rules is: "Turkey is a society without ethnic minorities or cultures." Akçam is one of the few Turkish historians who believe that the Armenian deaths should be labeled a genocide.
Part of the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation would involve both countries opening up their archives, really examining both country's records, and coming to an agreement about exactly what happened. Armenia will likely not be satisfied until this issue is fully settled, but it's quite possible that Turkey would never admit to genocide, no matter what the evidence. But while 20 European countries do refer to the deaths as a genocide, I still think that the House Panel was unwise to proceed with the vote at this moment. It's important to let Turkey and Armenia work through this process without too much American intervention. I personally think this is a task for Armenian and Turkish historians to sort through--not one for politicians to decide.
That said--I won't deny that Turkey's relationship with its minorities is disturbing at times. I will never forget the other day when I did a lesson on the civil war. I talked about slavery and the struggles African Americans went through to fight for their freedom.
One of my students mentioned the deaths of the Native Americans in our country, and then said: "Teacher, Americans sure have a lot of problems with their minorities."
I laughed, thinking about how simple the statement was for the complexity of our ethnic reality in the States. "Oh and Turkey doesn't have any problems with minorities?" I asked, thinking of Turkish tensions with Jews, gays, Kurds, Armenians, etc.
My students just shook their heads and said no.
"Oh really?" I said, then stopped, not sure what to say. "That's...interesting."
And they all laughed knowingly--as if they were all in the joke, but could never admit the truth out loud.
No comments:
Post a Comment