Despite outside pressure, or more likely because of it, Turks are more apt to reject proposals by foreigners that state the Turks committed heinous crimes in the past.
The question becomes more pressing as membership, or even a prospective membership in the European Union, is possible.
Not all the Turkish developments are promising, for example, the latest Turkish penal code and its preamble of 2005 make prosecution possible if a person will "insult Turkishness," including the idea that the Ottoman Armenians suffered genocide.
But this was not always the case. Turkish authorities acknowledged the genocide in the immediate aftermath of World War I.
The Ottoman government was in place but only because of the British.
The Ottoman sultan assured the British that those who committed atrocities would be punished and there were four show trials. For example, in 1919 a governor, Mehmed Kemal, was found guilty and hanged for the mass killing of Armenians.
But once the Ottomans were discredited and the British lost interest the trials ended from a lack of zeal in prosecuting war criminals.
The entire Turkish state does not bear personal responsibility since the atrocities against the Armenians were committed by a small number of people in the former Ottoman government.
The new republican government, once in place in October of 1923, was in fact an act of revolutionary defiance against Ottoman power.
Moreover, the Turkish nationalist movement followed an army officer, Mustafa Kemal, who had nothing to do with the Armenian's plight.
The present Turkish government, as long as it remains secular, confident of its place in the world, and wishing to foster closer ties to Europe will remain a beacon of hope in the Middle Eastern region.
Whither Turkey goes in light of recent developments is the critical question for order or greater regional instability.
Posts
