turkish-greek civic dialogue - AEGEE Europe

164
DISCUSSIONS IN WHICH GREEK STUDENTS PLACED
THEMSELVES IN TURKS’ SHOES:
? Why should the Greeks be demonised in the history books in Turkey?
There were two major scapegoats for the Republic of Turkey to find a reason
for all the problems the state faced. The first scapegoat was the Ottoman
Empire and the second one was the Greeks. We found 5 major reasons:
1. Turkish Republic was trying to create new nation state and it was clear
to find an “Other” within the Orthodox Christian Greeks. Rest of the
nations of the former empire were all “our Muslim brothers”.
2. Greeks have the strongest claims on Asia Minor amongst the nations that
invaded Anatolia. The major powers have economic interests and they
had to leave at some point. Greeks, on the other hand, had historical
and population claims therefore they could do more damage to the
creation of Turkish national image and the Turkish nation state.
3. Definition of Turkish nation- we must define ourselves – what we are and
what we are not. The Turks and the Greeks are too similar in terms of
culture, tradition, history. Therefore, we must create differences and
define ourselves based on the differences. Defining ourselves as
“non-Greek” as well as “non-Ottoman” helps to define our identity far
more clearly.
4. If Greeks are shown as the villains, their lives in Asia Minor would become
worse and they would decide to leave and hence the government would
find extra income to pay back our debts and looking for some income.
5. Greeks were the first to emancipate from the Ottomans as a result of
the uprising and can be seen as the legitimisation of the actions.
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN
THE GREEK TURKS & THE TURK GREEKS
Sonay: ‘There was no Turkish minority during the Hellenic times, this
region belongs to us (Greeks) and we need to take our land back’
Andreas: ‘They always want us to remember the history. We (Turks) are here
to decide our own parts for our own future including the Cyprus
issue’.
Emir: ‘Forces may send their troops to restore the peace so we (Greeks)
have right to go there to stabilise that region. In Anatolia there was
disorder and we had the right to go there.’
Erdem:’We are proud of the roots of the modern society and ancient Greeks
lands under Turkish control, so we should invade this region because
we owned it anyway.’
Kostas:‘We have the war and the Europeans are thinking they (Christians) are
better than us but it does not reflect the facts because who decides
who is better. ‘
CONCLUSIONS ON THE CASE
Vangelis Kechriotis:
We need to define ourselves against the other through expressing ourselves
to “the Other”. All nations had their own interests in their things and the
international treaties give the rights to do so. Actually it is the foreign powers
that are using us. In that case Greeks wanted to unify the area and Turks did
not want to lose its control. There were the concepts about the modernisation,
the values of the modernity since there was a new nation born. None of the
parties accepted the nationality and ethnic identity of “the Other”.
Cem Karadeli:
The way one side perceives “the Other” is very important and has to be taken
into account. It is important to assess the relations under the influence of
foreign factors not only because Britain was the scapegoats or the great power
but also because of the Wilson principles: the principle of the self determination
– rightful claim to defend. The same principle may be used in the opposite way
to justify the actions of invasion.
If major powers were not in the table, wasn’t it possible to handle the
problems?
Cem Karadeli:
It is not always good to blame the great powers for everything. Nations have
their own preferences. 600 years ago when Turkey was invading those lands,
there was not such an international community, there were no objections.
What we are doing was normal. We always talk about the influence of the great
powers but their interest may also change depending on our action.
Final Conference Association des Etats Généraux des Etudiants de L’Europe