Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract This paper focuses on two recent periods in which agents of the Turkish state actively defended Turkey's official narrative of the Armenian genocide. I argue that the set of strategies developed by Turkish officers and bureaucrats under the military regime in power from 1980 to 1983 established a pattern of state response that was replicated by bureaucratic elites in the face of new challenges to the official narrative two decades later. Understanding this authoritarian legacy helps explain the mechanisms by which and repertoire of action through which agents of the Turkish state have defended and re-produced its official narrative. Keywords: TurkeyMilitaryArmenian GenocideAuthoritarian LegacyDemocratic ConsolidationInstitutional Continuity Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tobias Schulze-Cleven, David Mendeloff, António Costa Pinto, Leonardo Morlino and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and comments. I am grateful to the University of California (UC) Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation; the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, the European Union Center of Excellence and the Travers Department of Political Science at UC Berkeley for funding that supported this research. Notes 1 A large body of evidence has documented the genocidal nature of these events. For political and legal evaluations, see: International Association of Genocide Scholars Citation2005; Whitaker Citation1985; International Center for Transitional Justice Citation2003. For historical scholarship, see: Bloxham Citation2003; Akçam Citation2004; Dadrian Citation1995; Kaiser Citation2001; Hovannisian Citation2003. For primary sources, see: Sarafian Citation1993; Davis Citation1989. For dissenting views, see: Lewy Citation2005; McCarthy Citation1995. 2 I define 'official narrative' as a state's characterisation of an event, including the nature and scope of the event, and the state's characterisation of its own involvement in and responsibility for the event's planning and organisation. 3 Hereafter I will write the phrase 'Armenian question' without quotes, for simplicity's sake. 4 The number of Armenians killed is difficult to ascertain, and is one of the sites of dispute in the historiography of the genocide. Estimates range from a low of 55,000 (Halaçoğlu Citation2002) to a high of 1.5 million. 5 On this, see: Schaller Bjørnlund Citation2008; Üngör Citation2008. 6 Author's interview with A. Erman, retired Turkish ambassador, Istanbul, 10 April 2009. 7 While not all of the activities that were part of these strategies occurred during the period of military rule (1980–83), the overall strategic framework was developed in that period. 8 Erman, interview. İAGM's first head was Ömer Engin Lütem, and its work was closely overseen by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Kamuran Gürün. Its name has since been changed to the Security Affairs Directorate. Author's interview with Ö. E. Lütem, Ankara, 11 March 2009. 9 Author's interview with anonymous individual, Istanbul, 9 April 2009. Lütem, interview, 2009. 10 Author's interview with İ. Türkmen, retired Turkish ambassador and former foreign minister, Istanbul, 8 April; Erman, interview. 11 Author's interviews with Ö. E. Lütem, retired Turkish ambassador and current chairman of ERAREN, Ankara, 20 May 2008 and 11 March 2009. 12 Lütem, interview, 2009. 13 The TTK was established by Atatürk in 1931 to create a glorified national history for Turkey and Turks (Göçek Citation2007). While it is nominally an independent foundation, TTK publications frequently reproduce and advance official ideologies on a range of topics, including the Armenian question. 14 Erman, interview. 15 CitationLütem, interview, 2008. 16 Author's interview with anonymous individual, Istanbul, 9 April 2009. 17 Türkmen, interview; Erman, interview; Lütem, interview, 2008. 18 While these trends are primarily due to domestic factors, some of these developments have been supported and funded by international actors. 19 Some people are still charged by prosecutors for violating the state-defined boundaries of allowable speech on this issue, but prosecutions are inconsistent and often do not result in conviction. 20 Analysts and observers of Turkish politics often make a distinction between the elected government and the so-called 'deep state', which consists of elements of the military, allied institutions and other influential but usually unelected actors in Turkish society. 21 In a daily press release from the Directorate General of Press and Information, the announcement of the establishment of this committee on 25 May 2001 was mentioned. Its purpose was reported to be 'to dismiss—without causing negative effects on the country—efforts concerning the unjust and baseless genocide claims to which Turkey was exposed, and to eliminate their negative effects on Turkey's national interest' (T.C. Başbakanlık Basın-Yayın ve Enformasyon Genel Müdürlüğü Citation2002). 22 Author's interview with anonymous academic, Ankara, 29 April 2008. 23 Lütem, interview, 2009. 24 Lütem, interview, 2009 25 While the number of books published by the archives has increased in general (author's interview with Y. Sarınay, historian and Director General of the Prime Minister's State Archives, Ankara, 25 March 2009), the increase in publications by the archives on the Armenian question is at least in part related to ASİMKK's activities (author's interview with K. Çiçek, historian and researcher at the TTK, Ankara, 9 March 2009). 26 Çiçek, interivew. 27 Author's interview with R. Bali, independent researcher, Istanbul, 1 April 2009. 28 Author's interview with R. Zarakolu, book publisher, Istanbul, 1 April 2009. 29 Author's interview with anonymous academic, Ankara, 23 March 2009.
Jennifer M. Dixon (Wed,) studied this question.