When the Congressional Committee in Washington approved the Armenian resolution with one more vote and it was still echoing in the world, it was witnessed that the Swedish Parliament was also in the same direction. And they also approved the resolution with one more vote.

We cannot say the votes of the members of the parliament for a resolution do not change our consideration of a historical event. But, it does not mean that these changes are always right. However it is sad, the truth is that the perception of history changes exactly in this way. In other words, historical events are accepted not with evidences or historical documents, but with current attitudes developed towards the historical events.

Therefore, it is futile to learn what happened in history with the accounts of the members of parliaments and today’s historians. Otherwise, what do the witnesses who might not have seen a real Armenian throughout their lives, cannot point where Armenia is on the map, and who have no authority in history, mean for the account of historical events? We should not stop questioning it. If we admit that there is a dominant idea which is in favor of the claims of Armenians and not of Turkey in terms of 1915 incidents, after some time it is not important whether this dominant idea true or not. How this idea became dominant is what should be questioned.

A great number of people in the West believe that Turks are barbaric and violent; people travel with camels; and everyone has a harem. But, we should not be surprised with how the Western people really believe them when they have various developed communication and media facilities. As these developed communication facilities do not guarantee to correct distorted facts. On the contrary we see that the various people living together can have extremely distorted facts about each other. In order to give an example, you can think about the ideas of people who are anxious of secularism about the people whom they call “reactionist”. They think that the reactionists will cut them into pieces with blunt saw and they will intervene in their lives if the reactionists will come into power. So what do you think are the reasons of their anxieties? And what might the reactionists have done in order to cause these anxieties?  

To tell the truth, the reasons of anxieties and perceptions about different nations mostly have their roots among people. We as the whole world have some fundamental problems in identifying other people. We can be under the influence of distorted facts consciously or unconsciously.

The Armenian genocide project, which needs to be appreciated, is a well-marketed campaign. This campaign is supported by the images of Turkey and Turks mostly in concerned countries. How these images of Turks were created should be worked on. However, the images of Turks that make their young people victims with coefficient system, make the lives of many university students who wear scarves miserable by not letting them enter university with their scarves, have 17 thousand unsolved murders within 10 years, could not tolerate beloved Hrant Dink who insistently declared his love of Turkey, and that are mere spectators to his legal lynching is not a matter of 1915, but of today.

We should not think that these current images of Turks do not affect by any means how 1915 incidents are considered. Therefore, history is not only related to past but also today. And the ideas about 1915 incidents can only be corrected not by going back to past but with current images of Turks.

Without a doubt, the problem with the Armenian genocide project is not merely related to the current bad images of Turks. It is also particularly related to Turkey’s achievements in the international arena. While these achievements extremely excite many nations, some others are uncomfortable about and afraid of this situation. The approvals of the genocide resolutions in the committees one by one are all related to Turkey’s achievements. We should not be surprised if it continues.

The issue surely has nothing to do with history. Whereas “the Armenian genocide” was never uttered until 1956, how it was brought to the agenda in an instant should be analyzed. The issue was first brought to the agenda by the Soviet Union and after it was supported by the USA, it became politically disadvantageous for Turkey. Since then, the genocide problem has been politically important in the politics of Turkey. What were the expectations of the Soviet Union? How were the international equilibriums once the USA supported the issue? These points should be analyzed in detail.