by Emrah Usta*
The progress made in Turkish-Armenian relations by the adoption of the protocols in 2010 proved to be unsustainable.
Bilateral relations stalled following the protocols. The three parties in the Armenian parliament that make up the majority coalition decided not to consider the protocols in parliament as long as Turkey insisted on preconditions for their approval. In consideration of this, the Turkish Parliament also remained indifferent to the process. The suspension of the process due to mutual distrust and indifference may leave the problem unresolved between the parties.
Individual efforts and the ideological obsessions that took hold of the people further provoked the painful events through political fanaticism. These aggressive emotions take the nations hostage and foster different prejudices and perspectives. It is sad that all these culminate in political fanaticism and the backing of state institutions. The decisions of some parliaments to recognize the 1915 incidents as the alleged Armenian genocide are the main source of controversy.
Genocide is a crime against humanity. However, this crime should be substantiated by legal and historical evidence rather than political allegations. Armenia is preparing to commemorate the 100th anniversary of these incidents, while the Turkish side holds lobbying activities before April 24 every year in the US, France and Germany. Whether these efforts are part of daily politics or seek to address the problem from a broader perspective is a popular question that needs to be properly answered.
That said, as noted by the Agos newspaper, there is one man who is seeking a way out. Professor Ahmet Davutoğlu, the Turkish foreign minister, has so far stated the most progressive and brave position in the history of Turkish foreign policy. His statements imply significant changes in Turkey’s approach towards Armenia and the 1915 incidents. The Turkish foreign minister proposes a new approach that respects the pain of the Armenians, does not deny the past, views this fragile issue between the two nations as a common source of anguish and offers an embracive policy that does not exclude the diaspora. By this approach, Davutoğlu tries to reverse the hostility. This new style basically stems from the conviction that the current aggressive policy of denial will not work out before 2015 and will put bilateral relations into greater jeopardy.
A new approach from Davutoğlu
Ömer Taşpınar from the Brookings Institution referred to Davutoğlu’s statements in his column. Taşpınar, referring to the phrase “just memory” coined by the Turkish minister, underlined that there is now a foreign minister who does not say that nothing happened in the past, but at the same time does not define the incidents as genocide. Taşpınar also recalled that the Turkish minister is relying on a new discourse. Obviously, the definition of just memory was crystallized by Davutoğlu’s remarks: “We are not like the Germans. There is no idea of ethnic cleansing or ghettos in our history. There were a great number of Muslim casualties in the Balkans, the Caucasus. Some terrible things happened in Anatolia out of paranoia that the Muslims would be expelled from these lands as well. However, this was not a reflex to annihilate an entire nation. If you compare this psychology to the mindset of the Nazis and present us as a murdering nation, this is not true. There was no unilateral declaration of crime.”
These statements suggest that Turkey is not in a state of crisis with the West with respect to the Armenian issue. The timing of this message is of course part of the strategic planning held by Davutoğlu. With these statements, Davutoğlu delivered two crucial messages to Europe and Armenia by raising discussions on the sensitive issues suggesting that this issue could be resolved in a timely manner without considering the pressure from the EU and the US.
The timing for just memory is good, but what is in it and what does it entail? These are vital questions. The basis of the just memory is the pursuit of balance between the powers. True, there was a tragedy in the Anatolian lands in 1915, but it was not only the Anatolian Armenians who suffered but also all other Anatolian nations (Turks, Greeks, Kurds and others). That is what this nation says.
Davutoğlu, who said that what happened was a common source of anguish and that it is for this reason that this issue cannot be resolved by blaming one side, underlines that the problem is unsolvable. Even though this approach seems rational from the Turkish perspective, it would obviously not mean anything unless the Turkish side offers a formal apology. This notion suggests that there is no crisis between the West and Turkey on this matter; the notion may also serve as a starting point to get through a psychological threshold with the Armenians.
Leaving the Armenians out of the discussion with respect to the communal clashes between the different groups while the Anatolian people were subjected to extreme violence in Sarajevo, Tripoli, Yemen and Jerusalem is not proper. In other words, it will take some time to convince the Armenians that we should have reciprocal empathy. The attainment of peace between the two countries could be an outcome of a new approach where neither side would feel victorious. Like Hrant Dink said, “The Turks are the doctors of the Armenians and the Armenians are the doctors of the Turks.” This could serve as the basis of this new approach.
*Emrah Usta is an İstanbul-based political analyst and op-ed writer. He can be followed on Twitter: @Emr_Usta
