Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISTANBUL: Psychological Threshold Between Turkey And Armenia: Fair M

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ISTANBUL: Psychological Threshold Between Turkey And Armenia: Fair M

    PSYCHOLOGICAL THRESHOLD BETWEEN TURKEY AND ARMENIA: FAIR MEMORY
    by Emrah Usta

    Today's Zaman
    http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288335-psychological-threshold-between-turkey-and-armenia-fair-memory-by-emrah-usta*.html
    Aug 1 2012
    Turkey

    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 Davutoglu, 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, Davutoglu 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 Davutoglu

    Omer TaÅ~_pınar from the Brookings Institution referred to Davutoglu's
    statements in his column. TaÅ~_pınar, 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.

    TaÅ~_pınar also recalled that the Turkish minister is relying on a new
    discourse. Obviously, the definition of just memory was crystallized
    by Davutoglu'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 Davutoglu.

    With these statements, Davutoglu 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.

    Davutoglu, 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 Ä°stanbul-based political analyst and op-ed writer.

    He can be followed on Twitter: @Emr_Usta

Working...
X