"BLONDE BRIDE" DOCUMENTARY STIRS PUBLIC OUTCRY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 ANKARA 000365 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/SE, EUR/CARC E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/10/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV SCUL SOCI AM TU SUBJECT: "BLONDE BRIDE" DOCUMENTARY STIRS PUBLIC OUTCRY Classified By: POL Counselor Daniel O'Grady, reasons 1.4 (b,d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The Turkish-Armenian community, Turkish Historical Foundation, the national teachers' union, human rights activists, and liberal journalists have condemned the distribution of a documentary film on the events of 1915 to Turkish primary schools; the father of one student is suing the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) for forcing his eleven-year-old daughter to watch the "racist" and "disturbing" film. The film includes graphic footage in support of allegations of Armenian atrocities against Turks. It was shown to an undetermined number of Turkish primary school students, including some of Armenian origin, possibly over the course of one or more years. The Ministry has suspended the distribution of the DVD, issuing a statement that it was only intended for teachers. Senior MoNE officials have told us privately there was no intention to instill animosity among Turkish students toward Armenia or any neighboring state. The 2003 film, produced by the GOT "Committee to Fight Against Baseless Genocide Claims," is a relic of a period, not so long ago, when the state vigorously suppressed dissent from the official Turkish historical line. While the psychological impact of having required thousands of Turkish children to view the six-part film cannot be downplayed, the government's positive response to the complaints of parents and civil society is further evidence that in Turkey today, when people speak their minds, the state has to listen. END SUMMARY. THE "SARI GELIN" SAGA -------------- ¶2. (C) The saga behind the "Sari Gelin" ("Blonde Bride") documentary film (www.sarigelinbelgeseli.com) goes back to 2002 when the then-government of Turkey formed an interagency "Committee to Fight Against Baseless Genocide Claims." The formation of the committee was a response to the increasingly high profile and successful efforts by proponents of Armenian genocide recognition to advance their cause internationally. The committee included representatives from the Turkish General Staff (TGS),the National Intelligence Agency (MIT), the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the MoNE. The committee recommended that Turkish textbooks and curriculum incorporate the official Turkish thesis against genocide allegations. MoNE issued a circular to all schools in 2003 that children should be informed of the "realities" of that period. The Istanbul Branch of the Human Rights Association (IHD) sought then to cancel the circular as a violation of the Turkish Constitution and other national legislation prohibiting discrimination, but the case was dismissed on grounds that IHD was not injured by the MoNE circular. ¶3. (C) In 2003, TGS is believed to have financed the production of the six-part documentary film. It was aired on the state network TRT and had an otherwise unremarkable run until news broke in February 2009 that the film was being shown to primary school students at the instruction of MoNE. TGS has been a leading voice within Turkey against genocide claims (see Armenian link on the issue at TGS website: www.tsk.mil.tr) and has helped fund a wide network of think-tanks, research institutes and other organizations -- some led by retired officers and of questionable academic standing -- dedicated to advancing the Turkish argument. TGS is also the repository of a significant amount of archival footage and documentation used by the state and its agencies to argue the Turkish case, some of which was used in "Sari Gelin." ¶4. (C) The film is unremarkable to those familiar with the official Turkish argument concerning the 1915 events: there was no systematic attempt to eliminate Armenians from Anatolia; the Anatolian-Armenian population during that period was not as large as is often claimed; and Armenian violence against Turks and cooperation with Turkey's WWI enemies forced the Ottoman government to relocate some Armenians from certain parts of the Ottoman Empire to others. The film tries to support this thesis through serene footage of present-day church-going Armenians in Lebanon and Syria. It makes a half-hearted attempt at balance by incorporating -- selectively and sometimes out of context -- interviews with Armenian, Armenian-Turkish, and Armenian Diaspora political and religious leaders, including Patriarch Mesrob II and Hrant Dink, as well as Western academics, diplomats ANKARA 00000365 002 OF 003 and government officials, many of whom have no strong identification with either side of the argument. The title, "Blonde Bride," is a well-known love story about a Turkish boy and an Armenian girl, meant to give a sense of good relations between the two communities disturbed by Armenian rebels, terrorists and modern-day proponents of genocide recognition. ¶5. (C) The film slips into demagoguery by trying to assign historical guilt to Armenians for the 1915 events by focusing at length on the more recent incidents of Armenian terrorism against Turkish diplomats in the 1970s and 80s, and by featuring disturbing photographs and interviews about alleged Armenian atrocities. In one segment, a 100-year-old Turkish survivor of the period describes how Armenian gangs cut the babies out of pregnant women and threw them at the ceiling. In another, a furnace in Adana is shown where Turks, including children, were allegedly burned alive. In this regard, the producers sought to be as explicit as the Armenian side has been in making its historical case, but the effort smacks of propaganda. This explicit focus on Turkish victimization is rare in Turkey, where historians and regular Turks alike often remind us that Turks are generally disinclined to dwell on the historical tragedies they have endured. "SARI GELIN" PROMPTS PUBLIC REACTION; GOVERNMENT BACKTRACKS -------------- ¶6. (C) In February 2009, an Istanbul father submitted a notification of crime to the Uskudar Public Prosecutor's office against MoNE, the Istanbul Education Director, and Uskudar Ata Primary School claiming that his 11-year-old daughter was traumatized by watching "Sari Gelin," and alleging that it incited racial hatred. News of the criminal complaint unlocked a torrent of criticism of the film and its producers. Five hundred human rights activists and intellectuals signed a petition to the Prime Minister protesting the film. The Hrant Dink Foundation joined the criminal complaint, arguing the film would have "destructive effects" on the mental health of elementary school children; numerous psychologists agreed. The non-governmental Turkish History Foundation issued a statement that the film violated Turkish human rights and pedagogical principles, and that it was not scientific despite claims to the contrary. The national teachers' trade union Egitim-Sen also opposed the use of the film in education. Writing in liberal "Radikal," February 22, Ahmet Insel argued that the film was a violation of Turkish Penal Code (TPC) Article 216 that prohibits the provocation of hatred among different ethnic and religious groups, and asked why no penal action was taken against the producers when the same TPC article was used against those who allegedly ridiculed religious values. Pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) MP Serafettin Halis submitted a parliamentary question along the same lines. ¶7. (C) The specific order and timing behind the instruction to use "Sari Gelin" in primary school education remains unclear. MoNE issued a circular December 4, 2007, signed by the President of the Board of Principles and Education, to "relevant units" instructing that the documentary be used in education. The DVD was then distributed across the country starting in June 2008. A subsequent circular, dated July 4, 2008, instructed all primary school directors to take possession of the "TGS-prepared" "Sari Gelin" DVD by July 11, ¶2008. From this point, human rights activists' and MoNE's versions of events conflict. MoNE issued a statement February 19, 2009 in which it maintained that the film was only intended to be viewed by teachers as a training tool and that it suspended distribution of the DVD in July 2008. Human rights groups have maintained that MoNE instructed schools in January 2009 to show the film to students and to report the results back to the Ministry's Provincial Education Directors by February 27, 2009. Armenian daily "Agos" reported that the order had reached Armenian schools on February 10, but that the schools' teachers and administrators decided not to show the film due to its violent and hateful content. The situation with the film remains unclear despite the MoNE statement. "Agos" reported March 10 that the order to report to provincial education directors was not yet rescinded and that some provincial directors -- including the Kadikoy district of Istanbul -- were still demanding these reports. ANKARA 00000365 003 OF 003 ¶8. (C) Meeting with us March 5, Merdan Tufan, MoNE Chief of the Board of Education, which sets the Turkish national curriculum, told us that "Sari Gelin" was produced by a private company (the aforementioned July 4, 2008 circular states otherwise) and reminded us that the film was not new. He stressed that it would be against regulations for MoNE to approve anything in the Turkish curriculum that would lead to animosity toward minority communities or other nations. He insisted there was no such thing in Turkish textbooks. The documentary, he said, was produced as a response to the accusations against Turkey that had been gaining currency around the world at the time and was sent to teachers so they could be informed about the historical situation. He insisted there was no intention to develop negative feelings among Turkish students toward Armenians. On the contrary, he asserted that it would have been unthinkable for MoNE to wish to impact negatively the process of rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. The media's reporting on the incident was not accurate, he said. Concerning minority schools, Tufan underscored that they fall under the authority of MoNE, but said they teach "their own history in their own languages" and that national oversight is limited. ¶9. (C) NOTE: In reality, MoNE closely scrutinizes minority schools' curriculum, according to one former Armenian school teacher, Murat Bilir, who also serves on the advisory board of the Armenian Patriarchate. Minority schools are permitted to provide education in their own languages, but due to skilled staffing shortages, this does not often occur. Primary school students at Armenian schools take math and science courses in Armenian, while MoNE provides a Turkish history and social science teacher. High school students at Armenian schools generally receive instruction in Turkish due to the absence of teachers with an advanced command of Armenian. Bilir lamented that students at Turkish schools learn only two things about their Armenian neighbors: the story of "Sari Gelin" and the deliciousness of the Armenian stuffed grape leaf (zeytinyag dolma),"as if the only the thing we contributed to mankind is zeytinyag dolma." COMMENT: -------------- ¶10. (C) In another sign that Turkey is changing, the outcry over the use of the "Sari Gelin" film in primary schools appears to have forced the government to respond to the complaints of parents and educators. The military, nationalist politicians, and quasi-governmental institutions, like the Turkish Historical Society, have kept their heads down during this episode; few have spoken up in defense of the film, much less its being shown to young students. Watching the film today, it seems like a relic of a time not-so-long ago when Turkey was tied up in knots over its history and even the suggestion of Turkish historical guilt could land one in court or, worse, the victim of political assassination, like Hrant Dink. The episode is further evidence that the steady rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia is having a positive impact on Turkish society's ability to discuss historical issues openly -- something Hrant Dink believed strongly would occur. Indeed, some commentators found most objectionable the very idea that the government would issue the "Sari Gelin" order at a time of normalizing bilateral relations. Continued progress on Turkey-Armenia relations thus bodes well for Turkish democracy. Consequently, official genocide recognition by the U.S. or another large, friendly country could, by damaging fatally the normalization of bilateral relations between Turkey and Armenia, strike a blow against the collective normalization of Turkish society. Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turk ey Jeffrey