Fri, 12 Oct 2007

My thoughts on Turkey

A couple of people have asked my thoughts on the current happenings in Turkey. You guys asked, so go get a venti hazelnut latte, get comfortable: this is gonna take a while.

If you haven't been following the news in the middle east, Turkey has been in the news regarding two issues in recent days.

The first is that Turkey has recalled its Ambassador to the United States over the controversial Armenian Genocide bill in the House of Representatives. This is a sensitive issue in Turkey, and it always has been.

But lest you think this is new news, it's not the first time such a resolution has been presented in Congress:

But before I weigh in on this controversial topic, let me provide full disclosure. From my mother's side of the family, I am 1/4 Armenian, 1/8 Kurdish and 1/8 Turkish. I grew up in Turkey, thinking I was half Turkish, and half German-American. I didn't know I was part Armenian until I was 17 years old and living in the United States. I was surprised, and offended at my mother for not saying so earlier.

In Turkey, there is a saying, "Ne mütlü 'Turkum' diyene!", which roughly translated, means "How proud are they who say 'I am Turkish!'" Compare this ethnic/nationalism perspective to the "melting pot" theory largely prevalent in the United States where it's considered politically correct to proclaim you are "Asian American" or "African American". In Turkey, the nationalism comes first (I am Turkish!) and the ethnicity is swept under the carpet.

And in some ways, this is a productive, even necessary policy... Productive, because I was never teased nor discriminated against for being Armenian... principally because nobody, including myself, knew it. Every young boy, whether Kurdish, Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian, or Turkish, since 1923, was conscripted, as a "proud Turk" to join the Turkish military, and serve the motherland.

And necessary because you need to consider the historic, cultural and religious situation in Turkey. Allow me to submit a brief history of 20th century Turkey:

The Ottoman Empire allied itself with Germany during World War I. After defeating the Ottomans, the Allies began plans to occupy and partition the empire into zones controlled by the Armenians, Greeks, French, British, Italians, Kurds, and a generous demilitarized zone. Of the sixteen largest cities in modern Turkey, the Turks would have been granted control of only three of them: Ankara, Bursa and Samsun.

Needless to say, this didn't sit well with Turkish nationalists, who organized a resistance and fought the war of Turkish Independence to establish a Turkish democratic republic. After repelling the allies, the Turkish nationalists formed a pro-Western, anti-Islamist republic. Compare that to the detritus left in the wake of Ottoman-controlled regions which fell under the control of the British and French empires: the (either repressive, anti-Western, openly hostile, or state sponsors of terrorism) states of Syria, Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

Indeed, the Republic of Turkey was established in 1923, and to break the stranglehold of Islamist fundamentalism, Ataturk established some pretty extreme measures to usher Turkey into the 20th century, such as banning the wearing of scarves by women, the fez by men, abolished religious madrassas (children had to attend secular public school), and banned prayer and writing of the Turkish language in Arabic script.

Contrary to the understanding of a lot of neocons who offered the promise of a democratic post-war Iraq as "a model for muslim democracy in the Middle East" (Duh! You've had one in Turkey since 1923!), Turkey has been a staunch US ally since the Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe recognized the strategic value of having an ally like Turkey in NATO (which explains why I was even born in Turkey in the first place!).

So with this perspective you can see that Turkey is at the front lines of a cultural battle between its muslim identity (Turkey is 97% Sunni muslim by religion) and secular democratic ideals (images of Ataturk are found in nearly every Turkish home, school, public building, and gathering place). To the Turks, he like an amalgam of what George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, and Paul Revere are to Americans.

So the Turkish national identity is one tied to a war of necessity to establish a Turkish state which was under fire from Western powers-- one where atrocities and hardships were prevalent on various sides during a very long and arduous war, which culminated, in 1923, with the establishment of the Turkish Republic.

With that basic understanding established, let's examine some of the assertions of the Resolution in Congress.
(1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.
First, these numbers are disputed. To be fair, the numbers of the casualties are impartially often estimated at 600,000. So there is not agreement on this very, very liberal accounting.

Second, atrocities were committed on both sides. This was a time of war, and just like the US invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 30,000 Iraqis, many Armenians and Turks alike were killed during the "Caucasus Campaigns" of the Ottomans vs. the Russians and Armenians during World War I.
(2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing `a crime against humanity'.
Again, we're talking about a condemnation of the actions of the Ottoman Empire during a World War where the allied powers of England France and Russia were invading said Empire in the hopes of enlisting and inciting the native Armenian residents of the areas controlled by the Ottoman Empire to rise up against the Ottoman Turks.
(3) This joint statement stated `[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres'.
So ¶2 is building up to ¶3 in suggesting that the agents of the Ottoman government won't be able to escape responsibility if they don't cease these massacres...
(4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the `organization and execution' of the Armenian Genocide and in the `massacre and destruction of the Armenians'.
... which they even acknowledge were condemned and convicted by the Turkish Republic... (a step in the right direction...)
(5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.
...again, building up to something that doesn't seem to be particularly off-base...
(6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.
...and there we go: The finger is pointed at "The Three Pashas", or the real power-brokers that got the Ottoman Turks into WWI allied with the Germans in the first place... But what this section overlooks is that they were condemned to death in absentia:
On November 2, after the Armistice of Mudros, Enver, Talat and Djemal, fled from Constantinople. All three were later tried in absentia at Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919-20 and were sentenced to death. Talat and Djemal were assassinated by Operation Nemesis and Enver was killed by a Red Army soldier in central Asia during the Russian Civil war, which was also claimed by Operation Nemesis. (Source: Wikipedia)
What's Operation Nemesis exactly, and who's responsible for not holding these three war criminals liable for their atrocities?
After the end of World War I, the Ottoman military tribunal convened in Istanbul and condemned to death the principal perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide, who had been extradited to Malta by British authorities... However, the British placed no value on the sentence, and secretly released the criminals. The executioners of the Armenian people were moving freely in the streets of Berlin, Rome, Baku, Tbilisi, and other cities. (Source: Wikipedia)
So, after these three criminals fled Istanbul and were exiled to Malta by the British, they were let go by the British, and exercised their freedom in Germany, Italy, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (the country)... and decidedly not Turkey.

To put a nice big cherry on top of that, in an-eye-for-an-eye-style justice, these guys were assassinated by Armenian agents.

So to say that the verdicts of the courts were not enforced is to ignore the fact that the Turkish courts had no jurisdiction in these sovereign countries. So already the irrational exuberance of this resolution is already historically misguided and inflammatory because this is all building to:
7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.
Do I have to point out how "judicial failures" is offensive to the Turks who sentenced these three to death?
(8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.
And now we get into the question of why this is being presented in the US Congress in the first place? Is it in response to the Turkish legislation passing some kind of bill in Turkish parliament condemning the U.S. Government for the genocide of the Cherokee during the Trail of Tears? Why no, that would be absurd. Why would the Turkish government need to pass some kind of resolution condemning something that the US actually perpetrated? (Note: Unlike the US involvement in the Trail of Tears, the Turkish Republic (est: 1923) can not be held responsible for conducting a genocide which occurred during Ottoman rule)

I'll spare you the detailed line by line analysis of the middle of the resolution, except to say that the remaining paragraphs basically outline how there are several reports of legal actions, news reports of the Ottoman activity, documentation of the aid to the survivors of the relocation/atrocities, the justification for the Holocaust by Adolf Hitler saying nobody spoke about what was done to the Armenians. It continues to talk about international statements and recognitions of the genocide.

The interesting part picks up with this paragraph:
(31) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a proper judicial and firm response, holding the guilty accountable and requiring the prompt enforcement of verdicts would have spared humanity needless suffering.
I think I already established that the "Three Pashas" were brutally brought to justice by Armenian agents, effectively carrying out the death sentences issued by the Republican Turkish courts. So this whole paragraph is ridiculous. I sincerely doubt that the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot would have thought twice about their atrocities had the Turks, rather than Armenian agents actually assassinated these perpetrators.
(32) In a commendable letter on April 9, 1999, Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, then Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, pledged that the administration would raise with the Republic of Turkey the issue of the recovery of Armenian assets from the genocide period held by the Imperial Ottoman Bank.
Now this is an interesting argument. Should the Turkish government write a "commendable letter" pledging that it will raise with the United States of America the issue of the recovery of African American assets from the slavery period by the Confederate States of America? How about the recovery of American Indian assets from the genocidal period of the United States of America? How about the recovery of the Asian American assets of the Japanese Internment of WW2?

If this isn't obvious enough, while it wouldn't be factually incorrect for Turkey to raise these issues with the United States, how the hell would this be a productive development in diplomatic relations between Turkey and the United States?!?

So, once it lays out this horrendous argument, this resolution simply resolves the following:
The House of Representatives--

1) calls upon the President to provide for appropriate training and materials to all Foreign Service officers, officials of the United States Department of State, and any other executive branch employee involved in responding to issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide by familiarizing them with the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to enforce the judgments of the Turkish courts against the responsible officials; and

2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24 to characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.
My take on this is simple: Let this resolution be enacted the moment that the Republic of Turkey be asked to provide training and materials to all of its diplomatic core by familiarizing them with the perpetration of Genocide and Subjugation of the American Indians, with the Enslavement and Persecution of African Americans, and the stripping of Civil Liberties, Writ of Habeas Corpus of Asian Americans in WW2, and the war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention by the current administration in Guantanmo, Abu Ghraib and countless other unnamed prisons across the planet.

That's not to say that Turkey has nothing to fix here.

A diverse and open society has no need to hide ethnic origins or to enforce nationalism among its citizens. It has no obligation to be ashamed of, and be afraid to acknowledge the extent of the atrocities committed by their predecessors any more than the German public today fails to condemn the activities of the Nazis.

The Turkish Republic should take these steps to become a pluralistic and progressive society. But an offensive and historically inaccurate resolution like this isn't going to speed that process up, it's just an offensive slap to the face to a key ally in the region...

Which brings me to the second, and somewhat less publicized (but potentially more worrisome) situation: The amassing of Turkish troops on the Iraqi border to impair the activities of the terrorist group "PKK" which has been conducting guerrilla style attacks against Turkish villages and cities.

This has been reported in numerous places, including the New York Times, The Independent, and Time.

As Time reports:
On Sunday, after 13 Turkish soldiers were killed by rebels, the government in Ankara announced that it had shelled suspected hideouts of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which wants some form of Kurdish self-rule in southeast Turkey. It was the worst number of casualties sustained by the Turkish army in nearly a decade. Just a week ago, a minibus was ambushed by suspected Kurdish rebels, killing 13 people, including a seven-year-old child.
And like the genocide resolution in Congress, this is nothing new either. Turkey and Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, had an tacit "hot pursuit" agreement dating back several decades that Turkey could freely attack suspected PKK positions with artillery, military incursions, and airstrikes in the mountainous regions well inside Iraq's borders (as far as five miles or more). (See "Turkish Forces Cross Border Into Iraq to Attack Kurdish Guerrillas", May 15, 1997 ). Just like US forces operate without impunity inside of Pakistan (really, what are they going to do?) to track down Taliban forces hoping the border will protect them, the Turks have been pursuing the PKK as cat and mouse for as long as I can remember.

What's different this time is that the Iraqis can barely keep Baghdad secure, not to mention the mountainous remote regions of (until now, relatively sedate) northern Iraq. Furthermore, the PKK isn't just hiding out "a few miles" from the Turkish border. Finally, the Turkish perspective was duly ignored by the Bush Administration before, during and after the war, so US-Turkish relations are at post-cold-war low.

And now when you heap on the insult of the US Congress (you know, the dumbasses who gave Bush the ability to enter this war in the first place, and who haven't held him accountable to pull out yet) to pass this Armenian Resolution, resulting in the Turks pulling their ambassador, basically denormalizing relations between the US and Turkey...

...it all basically points to the very real possibility of the Turks using this crisis and tensioning of diplomatic relations as an excuse to launch a massive Turkish incursion into Iraq.

By massive, I mean to the tune that makes the US surge pale in comparison: The Turks sent 50,000 troops into Iraq in 1997, and currently, by some reports Turkey has already nearly amassed as many troops on the Iraqi border as the US has in Iraq!

And there are, in fact, conservative, nationalist hawks in Turkey (although I find them a bit more palatable than our own variety because they tend not to be religious social conservatives, but secular ones), just like there are here in the US that are equally apt to say stuff like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here".

Yes, this logic is just as bankrupt (and just as likely to backfire) for the Turks as it did for us, but as the Jerusalem Post reports:
According to one Jewish leader, this [Armenian Resolution] was the result "of the growing Armenian pressure on the Jewish community." He said the decision of American Jewish organizations not to take a stance would "absolutely" affect the relationship these groups had with Turkey and could spill over into the Turkish-Israeli relationship.

"It's going to be highlighted in the Turkish press, and the anti-Semitic press," he said. "You have a Turkish government that is looking to go East rather than West, and this is going to help them go East."
And right now, more than ever, US Foreign Policy needs to be reconciliatory towards the Turks, to reassure them that their interests are going to be met by the Kurdish and Iraqi authorities, and that having permanent military bases inside Iraq that don't respect Kurdish autonomy is going to bring instability into a region of the world the US very much needs to be less of a powderkeg.

So there you have it: from a guy who has a strong affinity for the things that Turkey has done right since 1923 (while recognizing that they have quite a ways to go)... from a guy who has shed a few tears over the graphic and inhumane treatment of my ethnic Kurds at the hands of Saddam Hussein, from a guy who has encountered the ethnic homogenous whitewash of Turkish policy while ironically not realizing his ethnic Armenian background until he was an adult, and from a guy who endorses progressive multicultural recognition in a productive, peaceful, meaningful and non-hypocritical fashion.
Be generous, share: Digg This! | Add to Del.icio.us | Have you Reddit?| Stumble It!


Comments are closed for this story

Colophon

Written using MacVim
Published by Blosxom
Layout: Blueprint CSS