US President Barack Obama spoke but did not use the word "genocide," though he meant it, while describing the events of 1915 as a "great atrocity." He had given the signal that he would do so while on his visit to Turkey a few weeks earlier. So another April has passed without major trouble for Turkish diplomacy. Let's see what happens next year.
Can you imagine a foreign policy strategy in which a particular issue turns into a constant source of problems that cannot be resolved permanently? I am personally fed up with this issue and the way in which it has been dealt with by Turkish diplomacy year after year. It appears that Turkish foreign policy has been taken hostage by the genocide issue and as if Turkey is prepared to do anything to make the word "genocide" be forgotten or prevent it from being spelled out. I think Turkey has more important things to do then devote such a large amount of energy into bargaining over what to say and what not to say on the Armenian question.
Such a position only narrows Turkey's foreign policy perspective and wastes its potential. The issue at hand is largely historical, constructed and imagined on both sides. As such, it does not have much to do with current policies, challenges, and opportunities. It is just a matter of how 1915 is seen: genocide or mutual atrocities that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands from both the Armenians and the Turks.
Yet attributing such great symbolic and even political importance to the way in which 1915 is viewed gives much leverage to foreign governments to use against Turkey. It's very simple: First, move closer to the Armenian perspective of history and then use it as a bargaining chip against Turkey to get whatever you want in return for changing your position on what happened in 1915. This simple! Turkey has created this trap for itself over the years. It is time to get rid of it. A Turkish foreign policy that is free of such burdens as the Armenian issue and the Cyprus question can fully reach its potential.
The day before the American president was to make his annual speech, Turkey and Armenia agreed on a roadmap for normalization of relations, which is expected to involve the establishment of diplomatic ties, an opening of their mutual border and setting up a commission of historians.
Turkey can and should start the normalization process with Armenia, but this should not appear as a move to prevent the US president from saying the "g-word." Turkey's policy of "no problems with neighbors" necessitates Turkey having a working relationship with Armenia. Moreover, while trying to mediate between conflicting parties in the region -- between the Israelis and the Syrians, for instance -- it would be inconceivable for Turkey not to engage with Armenia and settle issues that fester between the two countries. The process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia has its own logic independent of what the US president says or what the US Congress decides upon.
It is diplomatically wrong to link Armenian rapprochement with American policies as it weakens Turkey's bargaining position vis-à-vis the US. By not saying the "g-word," the Americans do not give Turkey anything concrete; they simply refrain from saying a word. Then in return, they think (in fact, we Turks make them think) that they can ask for something in return.
Such linkage is politically wrong, too, for it gives the impression that Turkey's efforts to normalize ties with Armenia are being sought by the Americans. Such an impression renders the mobilization of public support for this policy even more difficult, provoking further nationalist sentiment.
The rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia should go further, but both sides cannot afford to have it appear as an American project.
27 April 2009, Monday
Can you imagine a foreign policy strategy in which a particular issue turns into a constant source of problems that cannot be resolved permanently? I am personally fed up with this issue and the way in which it has been dealt with by Turkish diplomacy year after year. It appears that Turkish foreign policy has been taken hostage by the genocide issue and as if Turkey is prepared to do anything to make the word "genocide" be forgotten or prevent it from being spelled out. I think Turkey has more important things to do then devote such a large amount of energy into bargaining over what to say and what not to say on the Armenian question.
Such a position only narrows Turkey's foreign policy perspective and wastes its potential. The issue at hand is largely historical, constructed and imagined on both sides. As such, it does not have much to do with current policies, challenges, and opportunities. It is just a matter of how 1915 is seen: genocide or mutual atrocities that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands from both the Armenians and the Turks.
Yet attributing such great symbolic and even political importance to the way in which 1915 is viewed gives much leverage to foreign governments to use against Turkey. It's very simple: First, move closer to the Armenian perspective of history and then use it as a bargaining chip against Turkey to get whatever you want in return for changing your position on what happened in 1915. This simple! Turkey has created this trap for itself over the years. It is time to get rid of it. A Turkish foreign policy that is free of such burdens as the Armenian issue and the Cyprus question can fully reach its potential.
The day before the American president was to make his annual speech, Turkey and Armenia agreed on a roadmap for normalization of relations, which is expected to involve the establishment of diplomatic ties, an opening of their mutual border and setting up a commission of historians.
Turkey can and should start the normalization process with Armenia, but this should not appear as a move to prevent the US president from saying the "g-word." Turkey's policy of "no problems with neighbors" necessitates Turkey having a working relationship with Armenia. Moreover, while trying to mediate between conflicting parties in the region -- between the Israelis and the Syrians, for instance -- it would be inconceivable for Turkey not to engage with Armenia and settle issues that fester between the two countries. The process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia has its own logic independent of what the US president says or what the US Congress decides upon.
It is diplomatically wrong to link Armenian rapprochement with American policies as it weakens Turkey's bargaining position vis-à-vis the US. By not saying the "g-word," the Americans do not give Turkey anything concrete; they simply refrain from saying a word. Then in return, they think (in fact, we Turks make them think) that they can ask for something in return.
Such linkage is politically wrong, too, for it gives the impression that Turkey's efforts to normalize ties with Armenia are being sought by the Americans. Such an impression renders the mobilization of public support for this policy even more difficult, provoking further nationalist sentiment.
The rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia should go further, but both sides cannot afford to have it appear as an American project.
27 April 2009, Monday
