The Mentality of Abdulhamit Still PrevailsThe concepts presented to us as “national interests” are not really national interests. During the Ottoman Empire or the Republic, these were the interests of the enlightened people who followed certain ideologies. These people were legionnaires or in other words they were hired guns or mercenaries of the emperors or the state. Lets not forget that Ataturk himself was a politician, too. He had said certain things to serve specific needs or purposes. NESE DÜZEL After the explanations of historian Halil Berktay, who investigates the Armenian Question, we now face a new issue. The media attacked Professor Berktay and it became apparent that a historian has to decide what action to take when the national interests and scientific evidence conflict. What should a historian do in this situation? Should he be on the side of national interests or scientific evidence? Socrates once claimed the lives that are not challenged are not worthy to live. The Universities are not only places where we accommodate knowledge but they are places where we learn how to think. Within the University environment if one encounters doubtful issues, they need to be investigated. Universities must purse and encourage criticism. Furthermore, the issues around national interests must be objectively investigated. Why? Halil Berktay performed a historical analysis on what had occurred during the 1915 Armenian events. For his analysis, he is very careful not to use the term “genocide.” You may or may not agree with his analysis. Regardless, the study stands on its own as scientific investigation. It is extremely discomforting to see the work is being criticized to be against our national interests or claim that historians are taking the same side as our enemies. Once again what is being presented in the name of national interest is not really national interest. These interests represent only the interests of certain people who follow certain ideologies. In reality, can the interests of a nation be in conflict with scientific facts? Or, can a nation, which has established its interest on lies rather than facts, flourish? Let’s set the ground rule straight. In the history of a nation, very similar to the other nations, there are many events that are source of pride along with events that when viewed from the point of view of current day values are sources of concern or even sources of shame. For this reason alone, in every topic to say that our nation has not done anything like this is wrong. I think that the whole issue stems from nationalism that forms the basis for a nation-state. The nationalist ideology adheres to a blind supremacy. Every nationalist claims that his/her nation is superior to the others. Nationalism also requires that the national interests should be enforced, whatever they may be or even though they are against the principles of justice. This ideology directly conflicts with peaceful co-existence and good relations with others. However, even today we see that this type of nationalism and nation-state are being preached. And yet today we are wishing to join the European Community. In developed nations, can anybody pressure scientists or force them not to disclose facts that are against the national interests? These types of acts are in direct conflict with the concept of civilized nations. Every scientist has the natural right to make claims or investigate things that can be against the establishment. Do our scientists encounter these types of pressures? In Turkey, scientists are under constant pressure. The Armenian Question, Kurdish issues, minority issues, several national and religious issues are taboos. Who are we fooling, if the scientists remain silent and do not disclose scientific facts? Are we fooling ourselves or the entire world? In any way, the whole world is discussing these issues even though we don’t. Of course, all these discussions lead to a solid point, The Armenian Event. The president showed the proper direction by declaring that the whole issue should be left to the historians. Otherwise, the claims and the counter claims in the US Congress or European Parliaments whether or not it took place are foolish. Equally foolish is the position of the Foreign Ministry – which absolutely denies the fact that anything close to it took place. It is not the function of the Foreign Ministry or the politicians’ to prove that 1915 events do not constitute genocide. It is the job of the historians, but under this circumstances they are unable to do their work. Why? This topic can only be discussed peacefully by the historians after the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. In Turkey, there is pressure to the ones who oppose or criticize if one objects to the officially held views. Similarly, none of Armenian historians can criticize the 1915 genocide, which forms the epic story of the Armenian Republic’s base. The genocide is an unresolved issue for the Armenians. The Ottomans accept a loss of 250-300 thousand people during the deportations which were implemented for military and strategic purposes and not for the purpose of genocide. The Armenians seldom want to exaggerate this number to 1.5 million. The true number, as Halil Berktay asserts, is around 600 thousand. In fact, the numbers are not that important. From your point of view what is important? The very unfortunate issue is that the killing of the Armenians were implemented by the organizations of the Ottoman state. You can not put this act at the same level as the terrorism done by the Armenian gangs. Simply because a state must act reasonably. The state bears grave consequences of murdering its own citizens. Why all of this was not discussed during the Republic? Let’s not forget that behind the Armenian deportations there was a serious economic issue. There is the issue of the Armenian real estate. This is not a few acres of land or a couple of cattle. The Armenians, like the Greek, were very well adopted to the capitalism and amassed considerable wealth. Who claim ownership to the wealth of deported Armenians? The ones who enriched themselves with the Armenian wealth could not have the courage of resolving the issue. It would have been against their personal interests. Our main theory asserts that the deportations were implemented as a measure against the Armenian upraising and that Armenians started the assassination first. However, we know that the deportations did not stop at the eastern front. In major cities like Istanbul, Izmir and Ankara if not the Armenian families but the leaders of communities perished. They were forced to march and terminated while on their way to nowhere. There is no doubt that the Armenians also killed the Turks. What is the estimate of Turks killed by the Armenians? I am one of the few ones who can speak authoritatively. Simply because my maternal grandfather was killed by the Armenian gangs who followed the Russian soldiers to Erzurum in 1916. In this case the killers were Armenians and not the Armenian State. There are numerous acts committed by some gangs and paramilitary units. The events of 1915 constitute a tremendous tragedy. There is no need to re-live this tragedy today. When the feelings are this raw, you cannot obtain healthy results. The only thing to do would be to do an analysis like the one Halil Berktay did and figure out under which conditions this tragedy too place. We have serious problems with our history. Wherever we turn into the history, we hurt somebody. We hear an immediate cry. Why our recent history is so full of problems? Why are we so troubled to discuss our recent history? We are troubled because of national interests. For example, we are unable to reach a conclusion for Abdulhamit; between a beloved leader and a red sultan. Some proudly claim that Abdulhamit was able to govern the state with peace, plus implemented many educational reforms. Others claim that he was a horrible despot and was the main reason for the decline of the country. The Republic assumed the position of the Ittihadist movement, labeled him as a horrible despot. We should have been able to see beyond this but could not. According to you, was Abdulhamit a despot? Within the political science there is no absolute good or absolute bad. Abdulhamit was not an absolute bad. What was Abdulhamit’s point when he suspended 1876 constitution? The constitutional monarchy was great but the people were not yet ready for it. He claimed that constitution can be implemented only when the people are in peace. The same logic continued throughout the Republic also. We still continue with the logic of Abdulhamit. During the single party rule we claimed that democracy is a good thing but our people are not yet ready for it. We asserted that our people are ignorant and cannot have democracy with an ignorant population. Today again we have fears about democracy and are uncomfortable that people will follow fundamentalists if we allow democracy. We need to understand one thing. Democracy is not a place where we reach after we solve all of our problems. So what is democracy? Democracy is something we need while we solve our problems. We can only resolve our issues by democracy. However, because of Abdulhamit-like approaches, we are unable to accept this. He established such a mentality that after a century we still apply the same. We say human rights concepts of European Union, the liberal ideology are good but we are not ready yet. We say let’s first resolve our problems then we will reach there. Is our recent communal history totally and clearly known? No it is not known. I recall a theory of Cetin Altan which he asserted some twenty years ago. He indicated that we were not alone in the World War I. We were with the Germans. The German chief of staff was in charge. He stated that very possibly the Germans advised us to deport Armenian populations to prevent them to attack us behind the Russian front. However, nobody really pursued his viewpoint. Ok, do you agree to his viewpoint? Even though it does not absolve us from responsibility, it is probable that Germans gave the advice for strategic reasons. The Turkish-German relationship during the World War I was quite often discussed in the past. For example, for us Canakkale is a major victory. However, Germans were celebrating the same victory in 1930’s. During those years, our press was complaining about this and was claiming that they have no right to do so. In response, Germans were reminding us that the commander in charge of was Limon von Sander. Every victory gets credited to the commander. If anything, this victory is a joint one. But as much as we do not want to share this victory with them, we also do not want to share the responsibility of the Armenian deportations with them. We could not objectively discuss pre-Republic era. We could not talk about the Sarikamis calamity, either the Armenian deportations, or how we entered the World War I and how we lost the war. Why does the Republic avoid to discuss wrongful actions of Ottomans and Ittihadists, meanwhile it is responsible for terminating them? No it is not true that we did not discuss the Ottoman era. If we take a look at the four-volume history books, prepared by Turkish History Society for high school education, the early Republic discusses the Ottoman era even though it does a little bit injustice. There are dual implications in Ataturk’s own analysis. We should not forget that Ataturk is a politician. He was surrounded by many Ittihadist sympathizers. He needed to use them and therefore he claimed that the empire had to enter the First World War. By this, he is implying that they had to do whatever wrongful acts they committed. However, in a different context he keeps them responsible for the dissolution of the empire and he criticizes them harshly. The people who look up to him like a prophet cannot distinguish between his two different views. In fact, Ataturk has said certain things to serve certain needs and purposes. We avoided discussing the truth. We covered these truths in the name of our national interests, however, the end result is not very favorable. If I quote from Cetin Altan, we rank 93rd in a globally for average income. In terms of quality of life we are 63 steps below Greece. Therefore, what did we gain by not discussing these truths? Cetin Altan gifted us with many beautiful formulas. We do Turkish propaganda to our Turkish people. We are assuming that the whole world will believe in our made-up facts. For a socialist like me, it is very discomforting to see that the USA became the sole super-power. Where does the United States derive its might from? The might and power of the USA are not simply because of its high national average income or its technological superiority. From my point of view, the power of the USA comes from the fact that its enlightened people can produce movies criticizing their own government. The newspapers can relentlessly criticize either the current administration or the past governmental actions. You see, if such American movies or somehow similar to them are produced in Turkey, it will result in either public lynching or hanging of their producers. Ok, had we discussed the truth, would we have been worse off? I am a believer of the thought that communal establishments influence each other. If Turkey’s national income, justice, Armed Forces, Universities are at this poor level, then the enlightened class would be at the same level as well. I must confess that I have to expect that our enlightened will have the courage to speak against the traditional approach. They have to face off certain obstacles and raise the popular norms. However, our enlightened always acts like a contract soldier or mercenary. Whose contract soldiers are they? They are the hired guns of the state, the emperor. It is very typical, the generation of Namik Kemal and Mithad Pasha were always engaged with how the empire can be salvaged. If you take a look at the Russians who shared the same exile with them, you will see that their main concern was how the state can be broken down. The anarchist thoughts were never developed in Turkey. Everybody was concerned with the reforming of the state. In return to loyalty, people always expected things from the state. We come from contract soldier mentality. This is why we never have courage. Our enlightened does not possess the tradition of challenging the state. Once the issue becomes down to the state’s superiority, we turn into loyal subjects. Have you ever received warnings that it is too early to disclose certain facts? Of course, I was warned by my immediate circles. What Halil Berktay said was the general thought of an honorable scientist. However, it generated a lot of hysteria. In Turkey the fact that some can say he is a traitor, he is a defender of Sčvres is indicative of how primal we are. Under these conditions, for anyone to produce any honorable work is heroic. In fact, no scientist should be forced to become heroes. Why Mete Tuncay? Turkey is undergoing serious discomforts, conflicts and crisis. But Turkey is undergoing serious discomfort, conflict and crisis for many years. The depression and suffering is never ending in our country. These serious depressions must have certain reasons, however, first and foremost the reason is because we constantly lie to ourselves, we avoid the facts, we hate scientific facts and we tie every critical discussion into national interests. Since almost all the facts are hidden between lies and taboos, we are unaware of most of the facts regarding to our state and communities. Furthermore, the facts presented to us are very doubtful. We had a nice conversation with Professor Mete Tuncay, one of the Turkey’s leading historians, about our approach to scientific facts, about how the same restrictions were applied on this land throughout the history, and how self-denial harms nobody by ourselves. Professor Mete Tuncay is the author of two published books: Leftist Movements in Turkey and Establishment of Single Party Rule in Turkey From:Radikal Date: 25 December 2000 Published in the Turkish daily "Radikal". Translated by Avo Gazal |