!� face="Verdana">Parliament has suggested the creation of a joint commission consisting of historians. According to a number of Turkish liberals who support the Armenian claims, archival documents would inevitably be read in different ways by different persons.

  Parliament has suggested the creation of a joint commission consisting of historians. According to a number of Turkish liberals who support the Armenian claims, archival documents would inevitably be read in different ways by different persons.

  In a way they may be right. This issue is so emotion-packed that historians from both sides cannot manage to remain objective. Meanwhile, it is no secret that some third party historians are on the payroll of the Armenians. 

  Still, there is need for a joint study of history. The accounts of the past written to date have all been one-sided. Each party would study the kind of documents that would bolster its own argument while ignoring those that were in the other side's favor. The Armenians have accepted as genuine a number of fake documents without questioning.

  The exchange of documents that took place in Vienna was useful. However, the Armenians fled from the scene as soon as they saw that things were going unfavorably for them, that is, when they saw that if they faced up to their past they might lose their genocide myth.

  Mr. Sukru Elekdag, the author of the, “commission of historians” proposal, says that the historians' work on the documents would merely be the first step. In other words, historians are expected not to resolve the problem but to shed light on the incidents. When different views are expressed regarding the documents this will enable everybody to see the facts more clearly. Once the historians complete their work then the methods to be used to resolve the problem can be determined.

  In reality, resolving the problem is a task for the “law.” Besides, as long as the Armenians insist on the “genocide” there will be no solution other than that. According to Article 6 of the Genocide Convention only a competent court can decide whether the crime of genocide has been committed or not. Ninety years have passed since the incidents and none of the accused or the witnesses or, for that matter, the evidence, has survived, the proper thing to do would be to seek arbitration. And the joint work of historians would provide the data needed for arbitration.

  If Armenians believe they have a case and if they see the ICTJ report as proof of their having a case, there would be no reason for them to be wary of arbitration.

  Together, the two sides would define the issue at hand, the time frame and the law to be applied. They would determine the procedure. They would determine the structure and languages of the final report and the documents to be annexed to it. They would choose third party arbitrators that would serve with their own arbiters and charge them with the task of dealing with the conflict.

  There is no other way to cool off the emotions related to the genocide issue.

  Creating a commission of historians and taking the path of the law would not mean ignoring the other fields. There is undoubtedly a political aspect to this issue. However, the ways in which the two sides approach this issue politically are quite different from one another. The Armenians want the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border and establishment of diplomatic missions immediately.

  The Armenians say -- at the level of head of state and foreign minister -- that they accept the Kars Agreement and that they are making no territorial claims on Turkey. However, Armenia has not stopped seeking restitution of property of Armenians that were forcibly relocated or, if that proves impossible, compensation for the property in question. Yet, as a successor to the Soviet Union, Armenia should officially accept the consequences of the Lausanne Treaty.

  Also, it would be impossible for Turkey to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia unless hope-inspiring developments took place indicating that Armenia would withdraw from the Azerbaijani lands it has occupied.

  That leaves the argument that this issue is neither historical nor judicial nor political, that this is a matter of conscience that can only be solved with a humanitarian and moral approach. Curiously, some of the liberal intellectuals in Turkey insist on this point while no such message is being received from the Armenians. Our, “men of conscience,” seem to be accepting the genocide claims but, in order not to say that out in the open, they take an indirect route, referring this issue to the, “conscience.”

  They obviously do not know about the problem and have no intention to learn. Yet, they try to play an ambitious role. Furthermore, they believe that they are, “better,” persons than anybody else, especially better than the nationalists.

  Renowned psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Vamik Volkan, who was a member of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), had determined that the Armenians were rejecting the empathy displayed by the Turkish members of the commission. There are serious reasons for that. In other words the, “men of conscience,” approach is more difficult than it seems. However, let us have them pitch in as well.