US embassy cable - 04ISTANBUL1074

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ISTANBUL 001074 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/11/2014 
TAGS: PREL, PGOV, AM, TU, Istanbul 
SUBJECT: ARMENIAN "GENOCIDE" AND THE OTTOMAN ARCHIVES 
 
Classified By: Consul General David Arnett for Reasons 1.5 (b&d) 
 
This is a joint CG Istanbul/Embassy Ankara message. 
 
1. (sbu) Summary: The lack of agreement and dialogue on the 
so-called Armenian "genocide" question remains a major 
obstacle to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.  A long-term 
resolution of this problematic issue can only be built on an 
open dialogue and healthy academic debate.  Free and complete 
access to the Ottoman archives, one of the primary 
repositories for historical evidence during this period, will 
be critical to building the mutual trust needed for such a 
debate.  Although Turkey has made great strides to open the 
archives and destigmatize the issue, persistent problems and 
doubts about the archives continue to undermine efforts to 
bridge the gulf of misunderstanding between Armenians and 
Turks on this historical question.  End Summary. 
 
2. (u) The most significant obstacle to Turkish-Armenian 
reconciliation remains a lack of agreement or even healthy 
dialogue on the Armenian "question" or what most Turks refer 
to as the "supposed genocide."  The accusations, denials, and 
counter-accusations on this issue have long obscured most 
genuine academic debate.  Armenian diaspora scholars have 
amassed scores of eyewitness accounts and narratives 
detailing the tragic events of 1915-16 that they claim 
amounted to a genocide of as many as 1.5 million Armenians 
living in the Ottoman Empire.  Turkish historians, meanwhile, 
have argued that no more than a few hundred thousand 
Armenians were killed by bandits, disease, and harsh 
conditions when, in response to the threat posed by Armenian 
insurgents (and the "massacre" of many Turkish Muslims), much 
of the Armenian population was deported to Syria and Lebanon. 
 
A Question of Identity 
---------------------- 
3. (sbu) In addition to thousands of years of recorded 
history, a rich cultural heritage, and a vibrant Church, for 
Armenians around the world the 1915-16 events remain a 
crucial component of their modern identity.  Although some 
Armenians have at times sought retribution through terror and 
violence (including ASALA terrorism in the 1970s), focus has 
shifted to a tireless political campaign for recognition of 
the events as genocide. 
 
4. (sbu) The Turkish approach to the Armenian issue is 
complex.  From the inception of the Republic, Ataturk and his 
establishment heirs have asserted that maintenance of a 
"Turkish identity" -- which Ataturk and his circle developed 
as an artificial construct and which his political heirs 
claim is under threat from domestic and foreign enemies -- is 
essential to the preservation and development of the 
Republic.  Representatives of both the Turkish state and 
every government to date believe that acknowledging any 
wrongs inflicted on the Armenians would call into question 
Turkey's own claims of victimization and its borders, and 
would make Turkey vulnerable to claims for indemnity. 
Decades of official denial and the absence of historical 
accounts or academic debate within Turkey on this taboo issue 
have deprived Turks today of an objective context in which to 
process assertions of genocide. 
 
Are the Archives Open? 
---------------------- 
5. (sbu) Both sides have attempted to use the Ottoman 
Archives to support their version of events.  The Turks have 
published volumes of documents to bolster their case, while 
Armenian scholars charge that the Turkish government's 
obstruction of free access to the archives suggests that they 
are hiding the "smoking gun" that would prove the genocide. 
Armenian scholars have long complained that they could not 
obtain access permits or were obstructed in their research in 
the archives.  Others point to long (and, they say, 
deliberate) delays in securing permits that often consumed 
most or all of the time available on grants or sabbaticals. 
Kevork Bardakchian, head of the Armenian Studies program at 
the University of Michigan, for example, told poloff that he 
and other colleagues were simply denied without explanation 
when they applied for access to the archives in the 1970s and 
1980s.  An Archive Director in this period spoke openly about 
the need to "protect" the documents from misuse by hostile 
foreigners. 
 
6. (sbu) Turkish and foreign scholars agree that former PM 
and President Turgut Ozal made a real push to open the 
archives in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  The records were 
placed under the supervision of the Prime Ministry, 
procedures for obtaining research permits were simplified, 
and efforts to catalog the 150 million documents were 
accelerated.  Everyone we have spoken to concedes that this 
represented a "sea change" that has continued to this day. 
According to Turkish archive officials, permits are usually 
granted within a week, archival staff are helpful, and 
photocopies of desired documents are readily available at 
reasonable fees.  When poloff visited the Ottoman Archive 
research room earlier this month, the staff showed him a 
computerized list of over 300 Americans who have received 
permission to conduct research there in recent years (over 30 
so far this year alone).  The catalogs are also freely 
available through the Archive website over the internet. 
 
7. (sbu) Some restrictions on access remain in place. 
Turkish officials do not permit access to over 70 million 
still-uncatalogued documents and claim that many others are 
too damaged for use by researchers.  Moreover, some critics 
still complain that the Turkish government seeks to block 
those researching the Armenian question.  Prime Ministry 
State Archive Director Yusuf Sarinay pointed out to poloff 
that researchers must be legally in Turkey for that purpose, 
which requires visa approval by the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs.  Some researchers continue to have permits delayed 
or denied altogether (Greek researchers have also been 
victims of such discrimination in the past).  Archive 
Director Sarinay said that although many American researchers 
have come to the archives, notably not one has come from 
Armenia.  He speculated that this was because there are no 
diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia - and because 
of a policy of reciprocity for Armenia supposedly not 
allowing Turkish researchers into its archives.  Turkey's own 
preeminent Ottoman historian, Halil Inalcik, criticized the 
Archives' lack of openness in a February 2001 editorial for 
Radikal daily entitled "The Ottoman Archives Should Be Opened 
to the World."  Despite the criticism, however, the mantra 
today is "openness" and any talk of "protecting" the archives 
from foreigners is politically incorrect.  Although the 
Archives Director still has considerable authority to deny 
access, he would be hard-pressed to explain placing such 
restrictions on any serious academic researcher. 
 
Have the Archives Been Purged? 
------------------------------ 
8. (c) Perhaps more important than the question of access, 
however, is whether or not the archives themselves are 
complete.  According to Sabanci University Professor Halil 
Berktay, there were two serious efforts to "purge" the 
archives of any incriminating documents on the Armenian 
question.  The first took place in 1918, presumably before 
the Allied forces occupied Istanbul.  Berktay and others 
point to testimony in the 1919 Turkish Military Tribunals 
indicating that important documents had been "stolen" from 
the archives.  Berktay believes a second purge was executed 
in conjunction with Ozal's efforts to open the archives by a 
group of retired diplomats and generals led by former 
Ambassador Muharrem Nuri Birgi (Note: Nuri Birgi was 
previously Ambassador to London and NATO and Secretary 
General of the MFA).  Berktay claims that at the time he was 
combing the archives, Nuri Birgi met regularly with a mutual 
friend and at one point, referring to the Armenians, ruefully 
confessed that "We really slaughtered them."  Tony Greenwood, 
the Director of the American Research Institute in Turkey, 
told poloff separately that when he was working in the 
Archives during that same period it was well known that a 
group of retired military officers had privileged access and 
spent months going through archival documents.  Another 
Turkish scholar who has researched Armenian issues claims 
that the ongoing cataloging process is used to purge the 
archives. 
 
Coming to Grips With History 
---------------------------- 
9. (sbu) Turkish attitudes on the genocide issue have evolved 
over time.  Although few have the courage to do so publicly, 
some intellectuals, academics, and others privately question 
the official version of events.  Ordinary citizens in central 
and eastern Anatolia often openly acknowledge to us what 
their grandfathers did to the Armenians.  Several visiting 
American academics have noted that the subject is no longer 
as taboo as it once was.  Publicly, the Turkish establishment 
(including the nationalist think-tank ASAM, the state Turkish 
Historical Association, and even the Archives) continues to 
challenge the assertions of the Armenian diaspora and fire 
off counter-accusations charging Armenians with having 
engaged in massive, wide-spread revolts during the war and 
with having perpetrated wholesale massacres on Turkish 
Muslims.  In recent years the Education Ministry has asked 
high-school students to compete in an essay competition to 
deny the genocide (note: Berktay claims that this idea 
originated with ASAM and was imposed on the Ministry by 
ASAM's military contacts).  The current government, however, 
has been noticeably more quiet on the subject than some of 
its predecessors, dutifully repeating the need to "leave the 
issue for historians to discuss." 
 
Comment 
------- 
10. (c) Although almost a century has passed since the 
1915-16 events, the gulf of misunderstanding between the 
Armenians and Turks on this issue remains considerable.  No 
longer as completely closed a subject as it once was, 
discussion of the issue in Turkey still remains limited and 
dominated by the nationalist/establishment line.  Even if the 
current government hopes to put this issue behind them, it is 
unlikely that they will be able to do more than simply 
encourage an environment in which a healthy discussion can 
take place.  It is doubtful that, in their current state, the 
Ottoman Archives will ever deliver a definitive 
interpretation of the Armenian question, but they will be a 
focal point and key resource for any Turks and Armenians 
seeking to engage in genuine research and debate on the 
issue.  To that end, we should support and encourage 
researchers to continue to push for access to the archival 
materials and be prepared to approach the Turkish government 
to discuss any complaints of official obstruction.  We 
request that the Department make us aware of any such 
complaints. 
ARNETT