AKP contradicts itself in Armenian issue

One very distinct example for this is the immediate reaction of the Prime Minister, saying this movement is harmful. This sign given by the person leading the administration was enough to activate all those who are deeply attached to formal ideology. The most characteristic example came from the Foreign Ministry.

Spokesman of the Foreign Ministry, Burak Özügergin, made a very decent announcement. He said this was a civil society movement and formal politics were continuing just like before, and underlined that in our hearts the pain of our martyred diplomats has not yet subsided.

This was an extremely civilized and democratic announcement. When, immediately after that, the negative reaction of the Prime Minister came up, everybody focused on Foreign Minister Babacan. The minister did not surprise us, putting aside the announcement of his spokesman, he stated that these types of movements could inflict a heavy blow on ongoing negotiations with the Armenians.

Meaning he did not leave the track of his boss. I think that the AKP has denied itself in this matter and showed that it has changed. The AKP we know would have reacted to this movement like President Gül. We encountered the opposite.

We reap what we sow
That is to say, the AKP is democratic, but on its own hook. Talking about democracy and freedom of speech if it suits its books, while turning its back if it doesn’t. It means that things they say regarding minorities and those with an ethnic origin is just eyewash.

The Armenian Apology Campaign has revealed such bogeyman you wouldn’t believe it. It is enough to just look at discussions. Oh, my god, it is unbelievable. Aren’t you shivering as you read about the words from the Republican People’s Party, or CHP’s Canan Arıtman.

Arıtman has become a symbol. A symbol for how twisted the feelings of the Turkish public are toward the Armenian issue. Her announcements and her continuing logic make you shiver.

On the other hand, I was astonished by President Gül’s reaction. Yet, on first sight he assumed a very civilized attitude. He had an attitude not likely seen in the AKP. Then he suddenly was alarmed. He shifted his ground onto proving his mother’s origin. He explained and filed a lawsuit. Why? For filing a lawsuit means that his mother was confronted with a bad role or accusation. Yet is there any crime if Gül’s mother was of Armenian or any other origin?

If he only had said "my mother’s origin is obvious. Even if she was of Armenian origin I would be proud of it," instead of bringing out a family tree and stating "my family is Muslim and Turkish registered background dates back centuries."

If he only had not felt like stressing "Muslim and Turkish," as if being Armenian was a shame. As a matter of fact, all this confusion is based on the doctrine at school, articles in newspapers and discussions at universities. We were for many years raised with distorted concepts. So now we reap what we sow.

To understand the Armenian issue
Sedat Laçiner from the International Strategic Research Organization, info@usak.org.tr, has written an extremely interesting book. The book "Ermeni Sorunu, Diaspora ve Türk Dış Politikası" has a basic goal, it examines how the Armenian allegations affects the relations between Turkey and the world.

We are only interested in the Armenian issue. On the other side of the coin there is the Armenian diaspora and the diaspora is what really bothers Turkey. This book examines development of the Armenian issue and the effects of the diaspora in view of Turkey’s foreign policy in detail. I recommend it, read it. Even if you know the subject very well, buy and store it, for it has a nice chronological structure.