Hizmet and Armenian Issue

Orhan Miroğlu's article of March 29 in Today's Zaman was titled "Hizmet movement to address Armenian issue". Miroğlu comments that "it seems the Hizmet movement is the only Turkish civilian movement which would positively contribute to the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations in the US, where the Armenian diaspora is considerably strong." The article was concluded saying "However, we have to show that we are ready to share their pain."

I made a comment on this article and it was kindly published by the paper. However, almost half of the comment was cut off somehow, making understanding the message difficult. Here is my comment fully, missing part in the paper highlighted. together with two corrections:

Normalization in relations is surely desirable. However, many Turkish people and statesmen have already said that they feel sorry for what the civil Armenians have been through during WWI and thus shared their pain in the last decade or so. But this is not found satisfactory by certain circles, because what they want is an official recognition of relocation as genocide on part of Turkish government so that the path to have a right for reparations will be opened legally. I hope Hizmet will be careful enough to avoid such a mishappening which may bring us into a position where we admit something we have not done. 2.5 million Muslims of Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus who lost their lives because of Armenian atrocities will never rest in peace if such a fallacy is allowed. A holistic approach is required to understand what has happened then. Even in Russo-Ottoman war of 1826 Armenians supported Russia as stated in their own sources (H. M. Knadjian. The Eternal Struggle). The same happened in 1877. It would be too naive if the Ottoman Empire had not taken precautions to secure the rear of the army prior to another Russo-Ottoman war. --In such a case it should not matter who was in power at the time.-- In my opinion actually there was a delay. It should have been done before Sarikamish Tragedy. Anyone from Eastern Anatolia who knows the history of the region well enough agrees that this was a genuine need. The Ottoman, Russian, Azeri and many other national archives hold more than enough documents which reveal the facts of the time. Any way Porte would not dare to attempt a genocide under the custody of the Western countries which demanded protection of Christians, not caring about Muslims at all. Armenians had accompaniment to protect them, even if it has not been very effective. My grandmother’s family and other Eastern Anatolian people who had to flee away in 1916 were not accompanied when they become “muhacir”. The question which needs an answer for a fair understanding is I think as follows. If coliving people from different ethnicities or religions do not get on well any longer and a shift in power is desired by one party, whose right is it to have the power : the one whose ancestors have a longer history on those lands but has fallen into minority position through milleniums or those who have come about a millenium ago and hold the majority with a ratio of % 70 to 30? Nubar Bogos demanded 390.000 squaremeters of land at Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Radical Armenian nationalists still have grudging feelings that Sevres Treaty was not put into effect. I wonder what is meant by “the official Turkish thesis about 1915 incidents is still being protected. And this prevent us from confronting our history” as stated above? Should Sevres have been put into effect? Should we have said OK, Eastern Anatolia is the land of your ancestors, you take it. Despite relocation, Armenians managed to do an ethnic cleansing which caused lives of 529.000 Muslims particularly after the retreat of Russia following the October Revolution in 1917 until 1920 and earlier. They would probably leave not a soul behind if they were more crowded and stronger. At Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Nubar Bogos said that there were 1.3 million Armenians on Ottoman lands prior to WWI. In 1919 700.000 were living in other countries and 280.000 on Ottoman lands. These figures leave us with 320.000 losses. Where does the figure of 1.5 million come fom? Many people lost their lives because of illnesses and starvation during the war. Most of Armenians died for the same reason as civil Muslim people and Ottoman Army soldiers. Can this be regarded as a genocide? The Ottoman Empire had ceded Batumi, Kars and Ardahan to Russia as war indemnity after 1877-78 war, after the Sarikamish Tragedy of 1915 Erzincan and Erzurum were also lost. Russia lost control in these provinces after 1917 Revolution and Armenians started an ethnic cleansing of Muslim population. When the Moudros Armistice in 1918 was signed British forces came to Batumi, they took over the Ottoman armaments and gave them to the Armenians. Meanwhile Armenians had established the Democratic Republic of Armenia. Should not Armenia, Britain and Russia share the pain of Eastern Anatolian and Caucasus Muslims in return? Do they feel sorry for hundreds of villages completely wrecked, young girls and women taken from Eastern Anatolia to be abused as sex slaves, children and elderlies who have been subject to all kinds of tortures. Yes, pains and sufferings should be left behind and good relations should be developed, but let’s do it fairly. Eastern Anatolian people deserve an apology more than Armenians do. Both parties should take a step forward and Armenians are better stop demonizing Turks accusing for denial of genocide. Armenian Genocide is an allegation, not a proven fact. We are denying a groundless allegation, not a fact. I hope we shake hands.

Revised on 09.04.2013 - SA

Armenian Holocaust:My Story blog by Selma Aslan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Gayriticari-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.