Turks and Armenians: Walking the Reconciliation Tightrope

8/8/2019 Turks and Armenians: Walking the Reconciliation Tightrope

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/turks-and-armenians-walking-the-reconciliation-tightrope 1/5

Summary: The shortcomings

evident in both the design of

and the debate surrounding the

controversial Holy Cross (Surb

Khach) liturgy are emblematic

of the challenges underlying the

process of normalizing relations

between Turks and Armenians.

But the occasion also offered

an opportunity to witness some

of the new and positive realities

emerging. While setting high

standards for Turkey is helpful,

so is recognizing that small,

incremental steps are more likely

to yield sustainable results for

Armenian-Turkish reconciliation.

Analysis

Te rst religious service in 95 years

at the 10th century Armenian Churcho the Holy Cross (Surb Khach)on Akhtamar (Akdamar) Island ineastern urkey’s Lake Van was held onSeptember 19. As with most steps onthe path to urkish-Armenian recon-ciliation, this essentially construc-tive initiative triggered considerablecriticism. Te relative absence o members o the Armenian diasporaamong the 4,000 visitors reported tohave attended the liturgy was attrib-

uted largely to calls or a boycott o this “publicity stunt” by Armenianpolitical parties, journalists, and reli-gious institutions.1 At the other endo the spectrum, in a backlash riddledwith symbolism, urkish national-ists held Friday prayers in northeasturkey on October 1 at the ruins o the Holy Virgin Cathedral (convertedinto Fethiye Mosque) at Ani, oncethe capital o a medieval Armeniankingdom. Corresponding with therst day o the urkish parliament’snew legislative year, this public display was marked with pledges againstsurrendering to “those using the guiseo modernity, democratization, and

1 “Armenian Ruling Party Slams Planned Church Service

In Turkey,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, August

11, 2010, http://www.rferl.org/content/Armenian_Rul-

ing_Party_Slams_Planned_Church_Service_In_Tur-

key/2124612. html.

Turks and Armenians: Walking the

Reconciliation Tightrope

by Diba Nigar Göksel

October 13, 2010

Washington, DC • Berlin • Paris • Brussels

Belgrade • Ankara • Bucharest

O f f C

reedom in their attempt to take the

urkish motherland in Anatolia.”

Te shortcomings evident in both thedesign o and the debate surroundingthe Surb Khach liturgy were emblem-atic o the challenges underlyingthe process o normalizing relationsbetween urkey and Armenia. But theoccasion also oered an opportunity towitness some o the new and positiverealities emerging. While setting highstandards or urkey is helpul, so is

recognizing that small, incrementalsteps are more likely to yield sustain-able results or Armenian-urkishreconciliation.

Negative Twists to Positive Change

According to those who advocated aboycott o the religious service at SurbKhach, the “opportunistic” urkishgovernment would have been aided inits eort to “score propaganda points”by Armenian attendance. Te localgovernment o Van was criticized orbeing motivated by the prospect o material benets rom Armenian tour-ists. Some argued that nothing short o“justice” — meaning genocide recogni-tion and the return o “ancestral lands”— could be accepted.

Analysis



Analysis

2

Analysis

Surb Khach had also sparked a divisive debate between2005 and 2007, when its renovation was nanced by theurkish government. Te Armenian media was rie withspeculation that urkey was actually destroying the Arme-nian elements o the church under the guise o restoration,and it was suggested that the “advertisement o goodwill”in the Surb Khach case was distracting attention romthe destruction o other Armenian churches in Anatolia.Te drama-ridden coverage included assertions that the“blasting o Armenian churches” was a commonplace

occurrence in urkish military exercises. urkey’s motiva-tion or renovating Surb Khach and holding an openingceremony in March 2007 was seen, at best, as a “showcase o tolerance” meant or the European Union. At the same time,the adornment o the ceremony site with urkish ags wasseen as an insult to Armenians.2

Indeed, the renovation o one church and the holding o services there once a year obviously does not suce as asolution to the many problems between urks and Arme-nians. Te good news is that this is merely one o many ongoing eorts aimed at overcoming the long-troubledrelationship urkey has had with its Christian minorities.Even better, the change is being spearheaded by intellec-tuals, NGOs, and various local constituencies. In August,the Greek Orthodox Soumela monastery in northeasternurkey held its rst service since 1923. Te Surb GiragosChurch in Diyarbakir is being restored by Armenians inurkey thanks to legislation passed in 2008, marking the

2 Information in this paragraph is based on analysis of Armenian media and political

debates conducted by ESI staff in 2007.

rst time a ruined Armenian church is being returned to

service in an area with virtually no remaining Armeniancommunity. Tese and other similar examples are evidenceo a sense o change and growing momentum on this ront.

Constructive dialogue between the urkish authoritiesand representatives o Christian minorities has steppedup, reedom o expression on previously taboo issues hasincreased, and there are ongoing eorts to crack down oncriminal assaults and assassinations o Christians in recentyears. However, there is still much to be done beore thisprogress can be consolidated, and the act that develop-ments on this ront are still in ux is all the more reason

why a responsible and constructive debate is crucial.

Grounds for Suspicion

Among other things, the mass at Surb Khach also revealedstubborn patterns o behavior in Ankara that continue tocast shadows over opportunities to set a new mood andbuild condence. Te announcement only days beore theliturgy that the church’s 2-2.5 meter iron cross would notbe installed atop the dome in time or the service raisedmany questions. Te reason provided — technical dicul-ties — did not satisy most interested parties.3 One thing

that should be clear to urkish authorities by now is thatambiguity does not serve them well when it comes to Arme-nian-urkish aairs. Although it was nally installed on the

church on October 1st, the delay, and the possible politicalconsiderations behind it, ended up stealing the show. In anenvironment where deep distrust and over-analysis turn the

3 Turkish authorities explained that more time was required because of the difculties

associated with working on a protected heritage site, including the bureaucracy involved

in recreating original features and hiring someone to afx the heavy cross (among the

wide range of gures, 76 kg is the lowest reported, while 110 kg is the most common in

Turkish press).

The renovation of one church

and the holding of services there

once a year obviously does not

sufce as a solution to the many

problems between Turks and

Armenians.

Constructive dialogue between

the Turkish authorities and

representatives of Christian

minorities has stepped up.



Analysis

3

Analysis

slightest ambiguity into a conspiracy, more straightorward

communication on the part o urkish authorities is impor-tant.

Tis was only the most recent in a series o similarly dubious actions. Te Armenian origins o Surb Khach werenot even mentioned in the invitations to or the openingceremony o the “monumental museum” in 2007.4 Telong-running reluctance among urkish authorities to reerto Armenian heritage in Anatolia as “Armenian” suggests adenial o the traditional Armenian presence in these lands.Moreover, the diculty o obtaining inormation aboutthe status o much o this heritage eeds into suspicions.

It is common knowledge that throughout Anatolia, many churches have been abandoned to decay or converted intomosques. Te appearance o covering up such realitiesovershadows the estive celebrations o progress when thereis any.

Another long-time grievance that re-emerged at SurbKhach was the sense o being vulnerable to urkish power-holders. For those who believe it is good or urkey todebate history reely, restore its heritage, and expand thescope o minority rights, the presentation o these concil-iatory steps as “goodwill gestures” runs counter to thespirit such reorms should enshrine.5 Te patronizing toneembedded in urkey’s political culture — and not restrictedto the Armenian issue — is out o synch with the progres-sive steps taken, and thus raises questions o sincerity. And

4 Phil Gamaghelyan “Akhtamar Reopening: Decient but Powerful Seed,” Armenian

Weekly, September 29, 2010 http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/09/29/gamaghely-

an-akhtamar-restoration-decient-but-powerful-seed/

5 Alin Ozinian “Büyük bir vizyon, biraz daha cesaret,” Zaman Daily, September 21, 2010,

http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=1030034&title=yorum-alin-ozinian-buyuk-

bir-vizyon-biraz-daha-cesaret

the presumption that the urkish authorities will use such

seemingly generous gestures to demonstrate progress toWestern skeptics also has grounds.

However, none o this changes the groundbreaking natureo the renovation o Surb Khach and the service held there,or the act that the event has led to a series o new oppor-tunities. Many people in Van went out o their way to makethose visiting Surb Khach eel welcome. A local multilinguanewspaper printed Armenian content, amilies volunteeredto house Armenian guests, and eective security measureswere put in place. Te Van Chamber o Commerce andIndustry and the municipality have been vocal about their

desire to increase Armenian tourism in their province andhave taken concrete steps to this end, including publishinga guidebook in Armenian or the rst time. It is importantto put the problems in perspective — both in terms o whatelse is happening in the country and how much has changedin the past 10 years.

Opportunistic Policies and Debates

Even i motivated by monetary gain rom Armeniantourism, enthusiasm among locals or restoring an Arme-nian church is certainly preerable to the vandalism carried

out or decades to nd gold rumored to be hidden within.Whether opportunistic or not, more contact between urksand Armenians and the restoration o Armenian culturalheritage in Anatolia is good, and should not be taken orgranted. In the same vein, the opportunism o the urkishgovernment — whether to improve its image in Europe,bring money into the country, or increase its votes — is notnecessarily all bad. In act this opportunism has arguably ueled many o the recent reorms, to the benet o dierentsegments o urkish society. Intelligently crafed oppor-tunism might just be the best we can hope or, particularly

One thing that should be clear to

Turkish authorities by now is that

ambiguity does not serve them

well when it comes to Armenian-

Turkish affairs.

The presentation of conciliatory

steps as “goodwill gestures” runs

counter to the spirit such reforms

should enshrine.



Analysis

4

Analysis

i progressive segments o society ensure that their demands

remain on the agenda.

Moreover, the assumption that the urkish government hasno issues o political expediency to deal with in tailoringits steps towards rapprochement is naïve and can result ina debate detached rom reality. Reconciliation initiativescome at a cost or both politicians and civilians.6 As the reli-gious service scheduled to take place at Surb Khach neared,skeptics rom across the political spectrum used it to stir uplatent emotions. Some argued this was particularly insultingto urks because Van was the center o an “Armenianrebellion” in 1915; others questioned why Armenians were

being rewarded despite their labeling urks as genocidal.Speculation about whether the government was increasingthe religious rights o Christians only to pave the way ormore reedom or Muslim undamentalists was voiced, aswere interpretations that urkey was only trying to increaseits leverage with Europeans who do not want minarets andmosques in their own countries. Some also argued, liketheir Armenian counterparts, that the urkish governmentonly allowed or a religious service in Surb Khach as a resulto European pressure — much like a capitulation.

Less than two weeks afer the religious service at Surb

Khach, the leader, district representatives and membersthe Nationalist Action Party (MHP) held Friday prayersat Ani, along the border with Armenia, having receivedpermission rom the Culture and ourism Ministry. MHPLeader Devlet Bahceli explained the choice o location by noting that this was where Sultan Alp Arslan o the Selcuk Empire prayed when he conquered the region in 1064. Inhis vigorous statement underlining MHP’s readiness to ghtor the motherland, Bahceli reered not only to the religiousservices held at Soumela and Surb Khach, but also implicitly to the government’s Kurdish initiatives.

Having received a slap in the ace by the constitutionalreerendum in September,7 and looking ahead to the parlia-mentary election scheduled or June 2011, the MHP appears

6 The Kars mayor who went out on a limb to brand his province as a welcome center for

such intercultural bridge-building lost his seat in the last local elections, for example.

7 “MHP the ‘most disappointed’ party in Turkish referendum,” Hurriyet Daily News,

September 13, 2010 http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=mhp-the-loser-of-the-

referendum-2010-09-13

intent on cashing in to the backlash against rapprochement

within elements o urkish society. Debates surroundingArmenian heritage and genocide make or a convenienttarget, and play into resentments that can be heard amongordinary urks, especially when provided leading questionssuch as “Which Christian neighbor is renovating historicurkic mosques and opening them to once-a-year Friday prayers?” or “Why is it only Armenia’s historic civiliza-tion that should be remembered or reclaimed while thoseclaiming moral superiority do not repent Muslim or urkicethnic cleansing?” Te deep rifs within both urkishsociety and between East and West are echoed in theapparent contest between Sunday mass and Friday prayer.

Advocates o change in urkey do not have a ree reign, butchange occurs because there are brave, intellectually honestpeople who over the years have withstood intimidationor their alleged unpatriotism. In this sense, the uncriticalnationalism and ethnocentrism still regarded as politically correct among intellectuals in Armenia can be disheart-ening. While politicians in both Armenia and urkey remain boxed in by realities o political expediency, civildebate does appear inhibited by “peer pressure” to proveone’s patriotic credentials.

Destination: Normal

Indeed, there is a lot that is not normal in relations betweenurkey and Armenia and it will take time or that level o normalcy to be achieved. For urks to know their history,or churches in Anatolia and mosques in Armenia orNagorno-Karabakh to be restored and opened to religiousservice, or travel across borders throughout the region to

The opportunism of the Turkish

government — whether to improve

its image in Europe, bring money

into the country, or increase its

votes — is not necessarily all bad.



Analysis

5

Analysis

Diba Nigar Göksel, Senior Analyst,European Stability Initiative

Diba Nigar Göksel is a senior analyst at the European Stability Initiative

and editor-in-chie o Turkish Policy Quarterly. Te views expressed

here are those o the author and do not necessarily represent the views

o GMF or those o the European Stability Initiative.

About GMF

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) is a non-

partisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated

to promoting better understanding and cooperation between North

America and Europe on transatlantic and global issues. GMF does this

by supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic

sphere, by convening leaders and members o the policy and business

communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic

topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to oster renewed

commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF sup-

ports a number o initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded

in 1972 through a gif rom Germany as a permanent memorial to Mar-

shall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides o

the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF

has six oces in Europe: Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and

Bucharest. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, urin,

and Stockholm.

About the On Turkey Series

GMF’s On urkey is an ongoing series o analysis bries about urkey’s

current political situation and its uture. GMF provides regular analysis

bries by leading urkish, European, and American writers and intellec-

tuals, with a ocus on dispatches rom on-the-ground urkish observ-

ers. o access the latest bries, please visit our web site at www.gmus.

org/turkey or subscribe to our mailing list at http://database.gmus.org/

reaction.

be possible, all o this will require change on many ronts,

and will take time and hard work rom both urkey andArmenia.

Te bilateral protocols o 2009 — which in and o them-selves would not have established normalcy anyway —opped arguably because they aimed, either explicitly orimplicitly, to solve too many deep-running dierences atonce, and to do so rom the top down. oday, the choiceappears to be to settle or the status quo or to create abase, with incremental steps and increased interaction, orsustained, long-term change. Te two sides in this conron-

tation are not Armenians and urks. Te divide is ratherbetween those on either side who want something to bedone and those who preer that nothing be done. It wouldbe unortunate i the lesson drawn rom the Surb Khachinitiative is that doing nothing is more convenient. Tere isa shared responsibility to ensure that this is not the case.

The choice appears to be to settle

for the status quo or to create

a base, with incremental steps

and increased interaction, for

sustained, long-term change.

Turks and Armenians: Walking the Reconciliation Tightrope

Documents

Transcript of Turks and Armenians: Walking the Reconciliation Tightrope