open Democracy News Analysis - the future of turkey - Comments

trvnwright8563 on "Turkey and history: shoot the messenger"

trvnwright8563 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:00:38 +0000

Dany I agree with you. You know every few dacades (in the good case) another form of fashism and racisim evolves. The world is blind to them and then after a few years of brutal acts we all wake up. What's wrong with us? Why can't we prevent this from happening?

Pick up lines that work

Sossie Kasbarian on "The Armenia-Turkey process: don’t stop now "

Sossie Kasbarian — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:01:56 +0000

Thanks for a balanced and thoughtful article, Kerem.

Although many Armenian diasporans are positive about the protocols, in terms of opening the borders, improving relations, improving the economy etc, the real stumbling block is the idea of the 'historical commission' which most diasporans, regardless of political affiliation, scholars and non-scholars alike, find unacceptable, for many reasons, as eloquently expressed by some here:

http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/10/19/leave-it-to-the-historians-scholars-from-the-armenian-diaspora-reflect-on-sub-commission-on-the-historical-dimension/

For many diasporans this stipulation puts a dark cloud over the whole 'improving relations' discourse and makes them worry about the real agenda being pursued (aggressively by the US and others) and where a tiny developing state with no strategic importance or natural resources will fit in to that. The diaspora's reactions (and yes mobilised by the ARF but not confined to it) is also one of worry - if the Armenian state can agree to a 'historical commission' after more than 20 countries and credible genocide scholars attest to the genocide, then what else will it (be forced to) compromise?

The other sad aspect of this whole business is that it has contributed to an increasing chasm between state and diaspora. The fact that the diaspora was not made a part of this process in a meaningful way has been felt very deeply. In political terms perhaps they don't have a say but in terms of the (internal dynamics of the) Armenian 'nation(s)', this chasm has serious implications about the future of the relations between the diaspora and the state, the future of western Armenianness, issues of leadership and legitimacy etc. The AGBU and others are presenting themselves as the voices of 'reason' and ‘balance’ in a diasporan discourse which is being played out in nationalist terms by the ARF, but it is important to recognise that the leadership of a diasporan institution does not necessarily reflect the views of many of its ‘constituency’. The reactions to the protocols demonstrates yet again the complexities about legitimacy, authority and representation in the diaspora. The question of 'who speaks' for the diaspora is as ever, a highly pertinent one.

Nareg Seferian on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

Nareg Seferian — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:50:44 +0000

Mr. Oktem's remarks were quite apt indeed. I would add that the emotional investment of all Armenians - whether in the Homeland or in the Diaspora - makes any sort of steps towards rapprochement difficult to deal with.

However, the real crux of this matter, in my opinion, is the illegitimacy of the government in Yerevan, again, both with the citizens of the Republic of Armenia and with Armenians of the Diaspora. There have never been truly free and fair elections in Armenia, and the current authorities came to power crushing a wave of protests after the last presidential elections, early in 2008. So, no matter what Serge Sarkisian and his cabinet move towards would be perceived as illegitimate by all Armenians.

keremoktem on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

keremoktem — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:53:40 +0000

I sympathize with Juan Gabriel Tokatlian in that I share his despise for the cynicism of power politics. There is no doubtthat the Turkish policy change towards Armenia is guided by the realpolitikgoals of appeasement and even, to an extent, the denial of genocide.

However, I also believe that Tokatlian'srevolt is above all the reflection of a feeling of catastrophe in parts of the Armenian Diaspora. And this feeling is not the default response of all Armenians in the Diaspora, but an emotional state that has been created deliberately by nationalist-leaning activists ever since the accords have become public. The explicit aim has been to obstruct any progress in Armenian-Turkish relations, as long as Turkey does not accept its responsibility for 1915.

But why all the anger now? Is the opening ofthe borders between the two countries going to take away anything from Armenia orthe Diaspora? I honestly do not think so. Turkey does not recognize the genocide now, and this situation will not change in the imminent future. Opening the borders, however, will create new channels between the two peoples. Already today, mostly politically interested Turks are travelling to Yerevan,and many of them do go to the Genocide Memorial Dzidzernakaberd, and face the dark side of their own history with very mixed feelings. Some of them have their individual ‘Warsaw Genuflections’ and write about it mostly in left-wing and liberal newspapers.

As for the historical commission: Yes, it is ridiculous to set up a forum for historians to establish what is a historical fact: That hundreds and thousands, probably in excess of a Million of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were killed deliberately with the aim to render historical Armenia and central Anatolia devoid of its Armenian population and of the material signs of their very existence. Establishing the commission, however, is not selling out on the genocide: It’s a strategy of playing safe by both sides. There are three possible outcomes of the Commission: Either, one side will walk out and the commission will lose its legitimacy and hence be disbanded, or, the commission will start meeting with big media fanfare and then eventually dissipate into oblivion once the sides lose their interest. The third possibility, that both sides agree that 1915 constituted a genocide would be wonderful, as it would create the space for Turkish political leaders, to sell it to their electorate. It would also help to make possible a sense of closure for those, whose suffering is multiplied by Turkey's official refusal of recognition. Yet, this is not a very likely scenario.

In conclusion, the protocols do not take anything away from Armenia and they are not a deal with which Armenia forfeits the historical claim to genocide. It does, however, explicitly accept the current borders between Turkey and Armenia, which by all means is a sensible and good thing.

Why I understand the feeling of dismay in parts of the Diaspora, I also sense a whiff of cynicism in Tokatlian’s piece: Armenians from the Republic have to live with the Turks, whether they like itor not, whether genocide recognition takes place or not. Members of the Diaspora have the luxury to visit the villages, from which their forefathers were evicted, and then return to the safety and comfort of their countries of residence and pontificate about the course Armenia should follow. Armenia is condemned to live with Turkey as a mighty and often overbearing neighbour. It is hence not surprising that its current government may have slightly different policy interests than Armenian nationalists in the Diaspora (and parts of the opposition in Armenia). Opening the borders with Turkey,without giving up on the genocide claim and establishing a non-descript commission with little real power is not such a bad deal. Whether this is a great progress is another story. But it will make eventual genocide recognition by Turkey, or at least the recognition of this troubled part of Turkish history by many citizens of Turkey more likely, not less likely.

Finally, there are two good reasons to reconsider, whether the protocols may in fact not be such a bad deal. Almost all opposition parties in Turkey, including the Social Democrats and the extreme Nationalists as well as the Azerbaijani government have condemned the protocols and negotiations as a sell out to Armenia. And they would probably know best!

Kerem Oktem, Oxford

Allen Breed on "Armenia and Turkey: forgetting genocide "

Allen Breed — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:47:48 +0000

It's disputed genocide(!) [Ref. ''The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, by Guenter Lewy''] and i don't think it's forgetting issue.

Genocide(!) of Azerbaijans in Hodjali by Armenians in 1992 also disputed. [Ref. ''Georgia Turkish American Advocacy Group - Hodjali Genocide''].

But Armenian should leave occupied territories. [Nagorno-Karabakh].

Cristian Rus on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

Cristian Rus — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:22:43 +0000

Romania joined the EU in 2007, Jan 1st, not in 2004.

O t on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

O t — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:12:27 +0000

I just wanted to point out the same issue as Helen did. It needs to of higher priority to write the names correctly, I guess as the name that is used in the article is more of an Arab name than Turkish and which may lead to missunderstandings.

Kolinsky Most on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

Kolinsky Most — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:53:28 +0000

I have just returned from Cyrpus, where I was appalled to find in Famagusta and northern Nicosia, beautiful churches converted into mosques, with minarets and Turkish and North Cypriot flags flying above them. Deserted Catholic and Orthodox churches and former Greek Cypriot homes fenced off with forbidden entry signs in Turkish. And the beach skyline of deserted Greek Cypriot-built hotels of Vorosha still fenced off and gutted by Turkish bombing in 1974. I talked to Turkish Cypriots who are fed up with Turkish military occupation and want to unite with the Republic of Cyprus so that all Cyprus can become a member of EU. This cannot happen as long as the Turkish military occupation continues, and stunts the north Cyprus economy. Mr Wieland completely ignores this stumbling block to Turkey's membership in the EU.

helen_s on "Turkey's political-emotional transition"

helen_s — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:27:19 +0000

The correct spelling of the surname is Davutoğlu. Turkish uses a Latin script. There is no need for a rerendering of the name such as appears in this article.

Not logged in on "Ergenekon: power and democracy in Turkey "

Not logged in — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:26:40 +0000

A deeper insight in the ongoing political dispute in turkey might be gained through Ertuğrul Kürkçü's analysis. You can click two links below:
http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/caq61/CAQ61turkey.html
http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Turkey2.htm

bodrum on "Turkey and a new vision for Europe"

bodrum — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:17:03 +0000

I think the real problem is Turkey must ask the questions to themselves and try to answer it. Do we have a speech freedom? What do Kurish people want? Do we have human rights in our country and do we actually perform that rights? How many of Turkey's people do aware of EU? What are the EU creterias, because most of them misunderstood by people?

goynukoren on "Turkey and a new vision for Europe"

goynukoren — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:15:24 +0000

Anatolia is neither Asian nor European but a mixture of both cultures. I am a Turk and i sincerely believe that I do not belong to Europe. However, Europe needs Turkey in the 21st century era of globalization.

Not logged in on "Ergenekon: power and democracy in Turkey "

Not logged in — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:22:47 +0000

Thanks much for the brief but enough comprehensive info on one of the peculiar components of the so called "Inner Government".

abuelita42pj on "Ergenekon: power and democracy in Turkey "

abuelita42pj — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:53:44 +0000

Thanks for the basic info that has been missing in every news paper or magazine I have--about 8 not counting those that aren't political or immediate in their info.

salar on "Turkey and the Kurds: politics and military action "

salar — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:02:41 +0000

Undoubtely , the kurdish issue could not solve by hard-power and the realist apporoach of military officals, it is time to change the direction, turkey now become a regional power after it provide the zero-problems with neighbours in its foriegn policy, it is out of question that the last Iraq war has change the political situation in the region and iraq-kurds have very active role in the new changing, turkey has to protect its interest through soft-power and throught open dialogue with iraq-kurds and peaceful solution for kurdish issue in Turkey. so the rational and coexistence is the best model should apply in turkey new foreign policy