US embassy cable - 05ISTANBUL1579

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ISTANBUL 001579 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/13/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, PREL, TU, Istanbul 
SUBJECT: INTROSPECTION AND SCUFFLES MARK 50TH ANNIVERSARY 
OF MODERN ISTANBUL'S BLACKEST DAYS 
 
Classified By: Consul General Deborah K. Jones for reasons 1.4 (b) and 
(d). 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary:  In contrast to its indifferent approach 
to earlier anniversaries, Istanbul marked the 50th 
anniversary of the infamous 1955 riots that sounded the death 
knell for its once vibrant Greek Orthodox community with 
exhibits, panels, and a flurry of media attention.  Interest 
focused particularly on a photo exhibit and accompanying book 
produced by the independent, Istanbul-based History 
Foundation (HF), based on materials collected by the chief 
military judge investigating the incident.  Most public and 
media reaction has been introspective, seeking to understand 
how and why the riots occurred, and trying to draw linkages 
to current political and social conditions.  On two 
occasions, ugly incidents spurred by Turkish nationalist 
elements marred anniversary events, but overall public 
consideration of the 1955 events was respectful, scholarly 
and mature.  Commenting on those who attacked his 
Foundation's photo exhibit, HF president Orhan Silier argued 
that Turkey's progress over the last half century is 
registered by the fact that in place of 100,000 raging 
demonstrators, there were only 25 fringe extremists.  End 
summary. 
 
Background 
---------- 
 
2.  (U) The 1955 Istanbul riots followed an announcement that 
a bomb had exploded at the house where Ataturk was born in 
Thessaloniki, Greece.  Within hours groups had gathered in 
Istanbul's Taksim Square and soon began to break the windows 
of non-Muslim shops in the adjacent pedestrian zone, Istiklal 
Caddesi, and other near-by neighborhoods.  Window-breaking 
escalated into rioting, pillaging and looting as the night 
progressed, with houses, shops, churches and schools 
affiliated with minority - primarily Greek, but including 
Armenian and Jewish - communities being totally destroyed. 
 
3.  (U)  An estimated one hundred thousand people 
participated in the riots.  Official tallies record 
destruction of 4,214 houses, 1,004 workplaces, 73 churches, 1 
synagogue, 2 monasteries, 26 schools and 5,317 other 
establishments (including factories, hotels, pubs, etc.) 
Estimates of injured ranged from 300-600, while the Turkish 
press reported that there were between 11 and 15 fatalities 
(Turkish authorities never officially corroborated these 
figures).  Diplomats at the time estimated damage at 
approximately 54 million US dollars, but only 29 million 
dollars in compensation was eventually paid out.  The 
government initially placed the blame on "communists" and 
other "provocateurs," and more than 5,000 people were 
detained in the days following the events.  Subsequently 
scholars have argued that the riots were not a spontaneous 
show of emotion, but a premeditated action organized by the 
Democratic Party (DP) government in conjunction with security 
forces and a student group called "Cyprus is Turkish" (CTA). 
 
Hot Off the Presses 
------------------- 
 
4.  (SBU)  Dr. Dilek Guven, in a book released in conjunction 
with the 50th anniversary of the September 6-7 events, points 
to DP involvement in the planning of the events, and 
implicates the British as well, arguing that they sought to 
encourage ethnic conflict in order to facilitate their Cyprus 
policy at the time.  In a September 9 meeting, Dr. Guven told 
us that she had initiated the project several years ago as 
she felt the theme had been addressed by scholars in other 
countries, including Greece, but not adequately in Turkey 
itself. 
 
5.  (SBU)  Guven noted that several years ago in Istanbul, 
she'd discovered the History Foundation's extensive archive 
of photos and materials donated by Military Judge ADM Fahri 
Coker, who'd served as the Chief Judge at the Beyoglu Region 
Martial Law Court during the investigation and prosecution 
that followed the riots.  Concerned that justice had not been 
done, he carefully preserved his investigative materials, and 
later turned them over to the History Foundation, but asked 
that they not be made public until after his death.  (Note: 
He died in 2001.  End note.) 
 
6.  (C)  Publication of Guven's book was delayed by funding 
problems, which she now regards as a blessing in disguise, as 
they enabled its appearance to coincide with the anniversary. 
 She told us she initially anticipated a negative reaction, 
but has been pleased by the interest and support she has 
received.  She attributes this to two things:  first, her 
conclusion is that the 1955 events were not perpetrated 
because Turks are barbarians, but because the Democratic 
Party was consciously engaged in state-building and the 
process of "Turkification" in all aspects of social life 
(here Guven underscored that by explaining the events, she 
was not attempting to excuse them); and second, her 
implication of the British in some way makes her story more 
palatable for Turkish readers as it was not exclusively the 
Turks' fault. 
 
7.  (C)  In her numerous press appearances, including a 
number of call-in shows, Guven said most of her interlocutors 
have been supportive and simply curious about the historical 
facts.  Those more critical have insisted she was diverting 
attention from how tolerant the Ottoman Empire had been or 
argued that Turkey was not unique in this experience; where, 
they asked her, were the photo exhibits of the Turks 
massacred in Cyprus?  Overall, though, the criticism has been 
less than anticipated. 
 
The Riots in Photos 
------------------- 
 
8.  (SBU)  In addition to publishing Guven's book, the 
History Foundation -- in cooperation with the Karsi Art 
Gallery, the Helsinki Citizens Committee and the Helsinki 
Human Settlements Association -- used Coker's archive to 
organize a photo exhibit to mark the anniversary of the 1955 
events.  Following Coker's 2001 death, the Foundation 
discussed the possibility of holding an exhibit, but decided 
the "political and technical conditions" were not right.  In 
light of the approaching 50th anniversary of the events, the 
Foundation's board revisited the idea last spring, and 
decided it was time to go forward.  They especially relished 
the symbolic value of holding the exhibit on the same street 
where much of the violence had taken place. 
 
Performance Art 
--------------- 
 
9.  (SBU)  While most viewers passed through the exhibit 
without incident, taking in the drama that befell Istanbul 50 
years ago, two groups of protesters did mar the exhibit's 
opening day on September 6.  Most dramatically, a group of 10 
individuals - including a 65-year-old woman - entered the 
gallery and after unfurling a flag and shouting slogans, 
ripped several photos from the wall and threw eggs at others. 
 (Note:  In a comment on the irony of protesters attempting 
to destroy photographs of riots that were themselves an orgy 
of destruction, organizers left the broken eggshells on the 
ground where they fell.  End note.) 
 
10.  (C)  Organizers had requested police support in advance, 
following nationalist protests about their plans, but 
complained that police support was inadequate.  While present 
in sufficient numbers, the police lacked training in dealing 
with such groups and later wanted to play down the incident, 
and "hush up the problem," claimed gallery volunteer Denizhan 
Ozer.  Gallery staff insisted on pursuing the case to show 
that Turkey is "a real democracy," he said, adding, "this is 
our country, too, and we have to fight for our ideas."  Media 
representatives were swarming the exhibit on September 7 
while consulate officers visited, and the police presence had 
clearly been reinforced. 
 
11.  (C)  Dilek Guven's reaction to those who defaced the 
exhibit was dismissive.  "We expected them," she said, adding 
that they were the same individuals who had interrupted a 
presentation made by Murat Belge in Istanbul last year on 
human rights.  The individuals had originally been described 
as ultra-nationalist "ulkucus" in the press, but even the 
local leadership of the "Ulku Ocaklari" (Idealist Clubs) 
denounced their action publicly on September 7.  Silier 
himself took a phlegmatic view of the incident, seeing 
evidence of Turkey's progress towards greater tolerance in 
the difference in scale between the 1955 and 2005 events. 
 
Who's Punching Whom? 
-------------------- 
 
12.  (U)  Similar fisticuffs marred a September 12 panel on 
the 1955 riots at Istanbul's Bilgi University.  When a member 
of the audience criticized members of the panel for 
suggesting government involvement in planning the events, he 
was attacked by a fellow member of the audience and struck in 
the head.  Police assisted the injured man out of the hall 
and initially left his attacker in place (they reportedly 
came back for him later).  Panelists countered opponents to 
their views stating that while Turks living in other 
countries may be facing difficulties, "we have to clean our 
hands first in order to have the right to criticize others." 
They outlined Turkey's explosive political and social 
conditions at the time of the riots and agreed there was 
ample reason to believe the Democratic Party government was 
involved in their planning, but suggested things simply 
evolved out of the party's control.  As for the real motive 
behind the incidents, several claimed the events reflected 
Turkey's minority policy, which was to "get rid of them" by 
making life harder.  Professor Ayhan Aktar cited figures from 
the State Statistics Institute showing that in 1906, 20 
percent of the population was non-Muslim, but that by the 
late 1950's that figure was just 2.5 percent. 
 
13.  (C)  Comment:  Freedom of expression is not always 
Turkey's strongest suit, but the 50th anniversary of the 
events of September 6-7, 1955 demonstrated that citizens can 
engage in public debate about "sensitive" historical events, 
even painful ones, especially when there is credible archival 
information and documentation to bolster the debate.  There 
is no denying what happened in September, 1955, and most 
Turks consider it a shameful episode in their history, but 
the question of "how" and "why" it happened has lingered. 
The level of public discourse in response to those questions 
during the past week was a welcome change from the usual dose 
of defensiveness and obstreperousness encountered when Turks 
contemplate historical events that reflect poorly on the 
nation.  Indeed, some columnists drew parallels between 1955 
and today, warning against the dangers of harnessing the 
hatred of the masses. 
 
14.  (C)  Turks tend to cling to a national myth that their 
country is, and has always been, a model of religious 
tolerance.  Coming to grips with events such as those of 
September 1955 is a significant step that hopefully will lead 
not only to greater historical awareness but also to 
addressing the way in which lingering vestiges of such 
ultra-nationalist attitudes have influenced the Turkish 
state's approach toward its minority communities.  End 
comment. 
JONES