Background note on the Turkish-Armenian controversy over history and the involvement of Canada
THE TURKISH‐CANADIAN RELATIONS
Turkish‐Canadian Relations have been adversely affected by the exclusive support given by Canada to the Armenian version of the historical controversy regarding the tragedy of 1915.
Given the common goals and ideals Turkey and Canada share as NATO allies, there is significant potential for cooperation between two countries in various fields, politically and economically, to engage in joint initiatives, especially in Turkey’s surrounding region. That potential is not being tapped due to the hindrance caused by the Armenian issue.
WHY TURKEY REACTS TO CANADA’S POSITION?
While there are 20 Parliaments which have adopted declarations supporting the Armenian claims (in Canada: the Motion of the Senate in 2002 and the Private Member’s Motion M‐380 of the House of Commons in 2004) Canada is the only country where the Government (executive branch) pronounces a “verdict” on the events of 1915 by recognizing them as genocide.
Previous Canadian governments had not associated themselves with the declarations of the Parliament; however the present government did so in 2006 and has repeated it every April.
IS THERE NOT AN AGREEMENT THAT GENOCIDE TOOK PLACE?
No. Unlike what is assumed, there is no scholarly consensus even in Canada about the matter. In 2008, a panel of Canadian experts concluded: “Holocaust denial is an illegitimate dispute. Labelling of the Armenian massacres as genocide is legitimate dispute, with reputable historians denying that the deaths of the Armenians during World War I should be characterized as genocide”. This group was responding to Toronto District School Board’s question. The experts did clearly show that there is a “legitimate scholarly debate” about the matter.
Again, unlike what is often assumed, there is no political consensus in Canada, or elsewhere, about the Armenian claims of genocide. In 2004, 68 MPs voted against the label of genocide (153 voted in favour, 77 abstained). The lack of consensus was most visible within the Conservative Party: 35 Yes, 16 No votes and 22 abstentions.
The common mistake is to use the word genocide very loosely. Genocide is a well‐defined crime. Its legal definition emanates from the 1948 Convention on Genocide. Because it is more than a generic term to characterize a terrible act, it needs to be ascertained by a legitimate international court of law after due process.
Since the “crime” of genocide has a specific legal definition, Parliaments, political bodies or national courts are not the proper places to pronounce judgment on it. Yes, in 20 countries where there are influential Armenian constituencies, Parliaments have taken this questionable step. However, no Government, except in Canada, has delivered a verdict on this crime.
ARE TURKS DENIALISTS?
Turks do not minimize the suffering of the Armenians during World War One. Too many Armenians, Turks, most of them innocent people, died or were killed during the tragedy that included the chaotic circumstances of revolts, Armenian armed groups joining the invading Russian army, inter‐communal violence, poorly carried out relocations, diseases and starvation, as well as war induced causes. However, there was no intent to wipe out an ethnic or religious community, the central criterion for the crime of genocide. In other words, the loss of lives was not the result of a premeditated plan. Otherwise Armenians not involved with the revolts and war would also have suffered and Armenians serving as public officials in the Ottoman government would not have kept their positions.
What Turks reject is the singling out of the Armenian suffering and accusing Turks as a nation that has committed genocide. This view is based on the Armenian national narrative that has monopolized the public debate in Canada. It is due to the very absence of a legal or scholarly consensus that Armenian groups have been seeking political support for their version of history.
To challenge the Armenian claims by providing scholarly arguments, archival documents, as well as personal accounts of Turks of the period, is not “denial”. This challenge is morally and historically legitimate. Portraying Turks and others opposing the Armenian claims as if they were like the marginal deniers of the Holocaust is not only unfair to Turks but also to Jews.
What Turkey opposes is the attempt to impose the national memory of one side upon the other. We need a just memory to replace the clash of memories. This can be done through a common effort to empathize with each other based upon a reliable factual account. That is why all Armenian archives have to be opened to researchers as are Turkish archives already. Turkey’s seeking normalization with Armenia aims also to achieve this goal.
THE PROCESS BETWEEN TURKEY AND ARMENIA
Turkey tried to initiate a positive process with Armenia over the last few years. It opened all its archives and proposed to set up an international historical commission with Armenia. Finally, with the mediation of Switzerland, the two governments signed on 10 October 2009 in Zurich two Protocols to normalize their relations based on an agreed timeframe.
Protocols also envisage a joint “impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations”.
The strong opposition from the highly vocal nationalist Armenian diaspora groups to the normalization between Turkey and Armenia have complicated the process. The diaspora groups which were vehemently against normalization and the protocols seem less worried lately. First came the problematic opinion issued by the Armenian Constitutional Court making reference to the Chart of Independence stipulating that “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia”. In so doing, the Armenian Constitutional Court has overstepped its bounds by interfering in the executive branch and tying up the hands of the Armenian Government in a way that would make it impossible for the latter to engage in a free and scientific study of the past. Also, the reference to “Western Armenia” (Eastern Anatolia) clearly reflects territorial claims from Turkey. This was soon followed by the Armenian Government’s announcement to suspend the ratification process. Despite this negative turn in Armenia, Turkey keeps its door open to taking the process further.
One of the main motivations for Turkey in initiating a process with Armenia was the need to foster stability and peace in the south Caucasus. The failure to resolve the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan need to be reversed. Unfortunately, Armenian diaspora is also opposed to the resolution according to international law of the Nogorno Karabakh issue (Azeri territories occupied by Armenian forces in 1992‐the occupation has been criticized by the UN and OSCE).
Admittedly, Turkey‐Armenia track and the Armenia‐Azerbaijan track are to be negotiated separately. Each has its own negotiating platforms. However, the interaction between the two tracks should not be denied either. The two tracks are mutually reinforcing; a positive move in one track will facilitate progress in the other.
The relevance of the Nogorno Karabakh issue to the Turkish‐Armenian process was demonstrated by the presence at the Protocol signing ceremony in Zurich of the three co‐chairs (US, French and Russian Foreign Ministers) of the Minsk Group which deals with the Nogorno Karabakh dispute.
IMPACT OF CANADA’S POSITION ON TURKISH CANADIANS
Canada’s support to the Armenian diaspora groups in the past emboldened the nationalist groups in their intransigence and has been unhelpful to the Turkish‐Armenian process. Furthermore, Turkish‐Canadian bilateral relations have suffered from Canada’s stance and the Turkish Canadian community felt increasingly disowned in their adopted country. One sided reading of history based on the Armenian narrative give scope to highly vocal nationalist Armenian groups and do harm Canadians of Turkish origin. Our children are bullied in schoolyards and university campuses, smear campaigns are organized against Turkish Canadian candidates in local elections and a biased account of that period is included in history books.
Canadians of Turkish origin expect that Canada, given its traditional reputation to deal with disputes as a reliable, fair actor, provide a positive contribution to Turkish‐Armenian process and become a part of the solution.
