For centuries - longer than the lifetime of the United States - the Christian and the Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire had lived peacefully in Anatolia. However, with the decline of Ottoman rule, nationalistic movements began to tear the empire apart. In the 19th and early 20th century, the Balkan nations gained independence, and with considerable help from European and Russian interventions, relations between Muslims and Christian Armenians in modern-day eastern Turkey began to degenerate.
Many aspects of this history still need to be illuminated through objective studies; however, many historians agree that, during World War I, the Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia rose in an armed revolt in alliance with Russia, the enemy of the Ottomans. This revolt was viewed as a security threat and the empire ordered a forced relocation of Armenians from the region. During the relocation process, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by famine, epidemics or by attacks from Muslim gangs and some corrupt policemen. The Turkish government, together with many international historians, refuses the contention that these unfortunate events represented an organized, one-sided "genocide" such as what took place recently in Rwanda. The debate around this issue - whether the word "genocide" should be used to describe the killings - is very sensitive for both ethnic Turks and Armenians.
An observant mind can recognize an interesting connection between the debate surrounding these killings, the recent visit of Nobel Prize recipient Orhan Pamuk's visit to Brown and the October report of the University Steering Committee on Slavery and Justice. The middle section of the report proposes the killings of Armenians during World War I as an undeniable example of genocide; Pamuk, meanwhile, had recently talked about these killings in an interview and, as emphasized many times by the press, he "faced potential jail time" in Turkey as a result.
This contributed to his image as a repressed writer, making him seem like a perfect participant at the Freedom to Write Literary Festival at Brown. However, unlike the festival's other participants, none of Pamuk's books have been banned, nor has he ever been imprisoned. On the contrary, he has been one of the best-selling authors in Turkey. As for "potential jail time," Pamuk was indeed charged under the controversial Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, but his trial never started; the court dropped it under a technicality (undoubtedly a result of popular opposition).
Turkey's Article 301, which is also mentioned in the slavery and sustice report, is often misrepresented or misunderstood. The article does not specifically forbid talking about the Armenian killings or terming them genocide. It forbids "public denigration of Turkishness," and since it is vaguely worded, it is often misused by zealous prosecutors in cases such as Pamuk's. Criticisms of such misuses and the anti-democratic nature of the article have followed deservedly from both Turkish and international society.
However, it should be clarified that no one in Turkey has been put into prison for terming Armenian killings a "genocide" based on Article 301. On the contrary, despite Pamuk's claims that no one except him talks about the killings, the genocide claim is being debated among Turkish scholars just like it is in other countries.
Ironically, some exemplary democracies such as Switzerland and France are passing legislation specifically to ban the freedom to say that the Armenian killings were not genocide. Other countries, like Canada and Belgium, have passed resolutions to recognize the events officially as "genocide."
This political campaign is absurd given the fact that there is no consensus among historians regarding the issue. Distinguished scholars of Ottoman history like Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy, among many others, have rejected the genocide label for the atrocities committed in Eastern Anatolia during World War I. Moreover, in the United States, historical scholars mobilized in 1985 against a similar Armenian Genocide Resolution proposed by politicians in the House of Representatives. Over 60 American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern studies from prominent universities such as Princeton, Columbia and University of California - Los Angeles wrote a letter to the House, which was simultaneously published in the New York Times:
"... As for the charge of 'genocide' no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering... throughout the years in question, the (Eastern Anatolian) region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely... the (nature of) the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike."
One of the authors of this letter, Stanford Shaw, was threatened by a bomb attack to his house in 1977 by an Armenian terrorist group. Armenian fanatics did not hesitate to use terror during the 1970s and 1980s in an attempt to force Turkey to accept the term "genocide" and agree to land reparations. Unfortunately, a total of 41 people lost their lives in over 200 terrorist attacks in 20 countries as a direct result of this campaign.
It is na've to think that proponents of the genocide theory are engaged in a mere quest for truth, given that historical debate is being stifled and Turkey's attempts to engage in this debate are being turned down. As recently as March 2005, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan invited the Armenian government to establish a joint commission of Turkish, Armenian and international historians to investigate archives of all related countries and sort out the true nature of the events that transpired. The offer was rejected - by Armenia.
Ironically, the slavery and justice report dedicates a good portion of its volume to such "Truth Commissions" and counts them as a rubric of reparative justice. However, for some reason the report never mentions Turkey's invitations but claims the country is in constant denial.
It is rather disappointing that in a report prepared by academics at Brown in the name of truth and justice, the debate surrounding this issue - and Turkey's attempts to investigate it objectively - has been ignored completely.
Ozge Can Ozcanli GS, Cengiz Pehlevan GS and Mert Akdere GS are members of the Brown Turkish Cultural Society.
