!ßÈÀ="justify">Calling the Armenian conference under way in Istanbul a ‘historical’ one has no meaning other than to indicate the exaggerated importance some of the participants attribute to their own pitiful egos. This conference is the fifth in a series of meetings, the first of which was held at the University of Michigan, dominated by the Armenian diaspora.

Gündüz Aktan

  Calling the Armenian conference under way in Istanbul a “historical” one has no meaning other than to indicate the exaggerated importance some of the participants attribute to their own pitiful egos. This conference is the fifth in a series of meetings, the first of which was held at the University of Michigan, dominated by the Armenian diaspora. The participants have been more or less the same. Their arguments too have hardly been different. When a court initially ordered a temporary suspension of the conference the organizers blew that development out of proportion so as to inflate the importance of the conference. Yet, the higher court was to overrule the decision of that court, anyway.

  In reality it would have been much better if the conference had not met with any attempt to obstruct it at all. The struggle for democracy in Turkey has lasted longer than it should have. Due to the cry raised by certain people who want to become heroes in this struggle, we cannot discuss existing problems in a serious manner. If such serious discussions had taken place these people's ignorance on the issues at hand would have become all too obvious.

  Those who hold the opposite view never get invited to such meetings. This is because the real organizers of this initiative do not want to hear or communicate to others the opposing views. In fact, in the past, they silenced through the threat of terrorism those who had opposed the “Armenian genocide” claims in the United States. They even managed to get some of these academics fired from their jobs at American universities.

  Later, those who say that the “genocide” did not happen were invited to conferences held in Western countries; however, they were denied any chance to deliver their statements. They were only permitted to ask questions. And if a question happened to be a lengthy one, they would be promptly interrupted.

  The first time I had the opportunity to make a speech at a hearing held at the United States Congress in 2000, I had the chance to speak for 10 minutes and reply to a few questions. Later, at the British Parliament, I was able to intervene -- for five minutes only -- after Dadrian spoke there for 45 minutes. The only meeting where we were allowed to speak as long as the Armenians did was held in Denmark. At the end of that meeting the Armenians boycotted the joint dinner.

  Most of the people participating in these series of conferences refer -- sometimes indirectly-- to the Armenians incidents as a case of genocide. However, they lack the self-confidence needed to discuss the genocide thesis at a meeting attended by people who really know the subject.

  In some of the European Union countries people are legally banned from saying that the “genocide” did not happen. (In some other EU countries this restriction exists in practice though not by law.) This ban does not create a simple inequality. It goes beyond that. These countries assume that the “Armenian genocide” did happen and they silence those who claim that it did not happen in reality, thus committing a breach of freedom of expression. However, these countries do not see this issue in that light. They base the ban on the conviction that “denying the genocide” constitutes a crime. Yet, in our country, any effort to silence those who allege that the “genocide” did occur comes under criticism as a shortcoming of democracy and violation of freedom of expression.

  By not inviting those who are opposed to the “genocide” allegations, the organizers of the Armenian conference have legitimized the undemocratic and unlawful attitude of the EU countries in question. Is this the way they hope to enhance democracy in Turkey?

  In reality, the Armenian genocide claims have gone too far. The series of April 24 declarations issued by the U.S. president and the unbearable lightness of Turk-bashing at the congressional committee debating the genocide claims are poisoning our relationship with the United States. Due to Turkey's “strategic importance,” the U.S. president cannot utter the word “genocide”; however, this has caused a development of the art of using some other words to say that genocide had been committed. This situation, lacking in seriousness, must be brought to an end to restore the health of bilateral relations, if not for anything else.

  Let Mr. Bush use the term genocide in his next April 24 declaration. Since this is an issue that concerns the law more than history, we could then invite the United States to take this issue to the International Court of Justice in The Hague according to Article 9 of the convention or to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the same city.

  Our strategic relationship with the United States can tolerate such court proceedings more easily than biased declarations. Let us not deal with a small and wounded country such as Armenia. Let us focus instead on ridding the United States of being blackmailed by the Armenian diaspora.

  Our revisionist historians would not be able to contribute to the resolution of the problem. For those that represent the individual traumas of the past, the important thing is to prove how “bad” the Turks have been rather than to write about history accurately. If they continue on this path, they will achieve nothing other than ensuring that “Cilgin Turkler” (Crazy Turks, a book describing some extraordinary achievements of daring Turks during the Turkish War of Independence) will be printed for the 700th time from its present 70th edition.