Tweet
NO ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE
Barin Kayaoglu
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
May 1 2007
Until last week, Turkish policy-makers were quite concerned that the
U.S. House of Representatives might pass a resolution recognizing
the events of 1915 as a genocide against the Armenian people. Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul and Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt
had spent time in Washington in February talking to American officials,
explaining the dangers of such a resolution.
April 24 (the symbolic anniversary that the Armenians claim was when
their "genocide" began in 1915) has come and gone and it seems that
the resolution has been conveniently swept under the rug.
That is very auspicious. Turkish politics is quite volatile right now
because of the presidential elections. On the one hand, there is much
cause to be hopeful that it is civil society and not the military that
is framing the debate. (Friday night's press statement by the Turkish
General Staff has thrown things off course but Turkey has the capacity
to sustain the turmoil.) People are voicing contrasting opinions in
different forums, most conspicuously in mass demonstrations. Perhaps
for the first time, the demos (people) are pushing for their kratos
(rule) in Turkey.
The genocide bill could have changed that. The feeling of being
"surrounded" worsens Turkish people's approach to regional and
international events. Discussions of the Armenian question are still
hostage to that feeling. As the Washington-based PEW Center's surveys
indicate, an overwhelming majority of Turkish people - justifiably
or not - perceive the United States as the greatest danger for world
peace at the moment. It is astonishing to note that Turkey, a formal
U.S. ally, records highest anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East.
One reason is that Turks believe that the United States is deliberately
provoking PKK-instigated terrorism from Northern Iraq.
Thus, had the resolution passed, American legislators could have
caused catastrophic damage to Turkish-American relations.
Substantively, a resolution would not have meant much. Turkey would
have still been an important regional power while the United States
would have continued its course as a global superpower. It would have
been cataclysmic, however, for ordinary Turks to become completely
incensed at the United States and to force their leaders to take a
tougher stance against Washington. Turkish decision-makers would have
followed suit.
In an ideal world, Turkey and Armenia should have solved their problems
long ago. However, the events of 1915 relate to the very genesis of
the two nations' self-perception. Both sides are unwilling to accept
that their ancestors did more than they admitted. Guilt was mutual,
although the degree of responsibility can be disputed.
But a self-righteous bill from Capitol Hill would have added fuel to
fire and derailed the respectable (albeit small) Turkish and Armenian
efforts to come to an understanding. For the first time since World
War I, Turkish and Armenian scholars are listening to the arguments of
the "other" side and they are doing it in a civilized manner. Some are
even accepting the viewpoints of the "other" side. For the first time,
there is a possibility that Friedrich Hegel's "thesis + antithesis =
synthesis" assertion can apply to Turks and Armenians.
It is worth noting that the House resolution was probably shelved
in order not to aggravate the situation in Turkey. However, Turkish
people should bear in mind that such resolutions and declarations
do not mean much. It takes historians a lot of research, writing,
editing, and re-editing to reach conclusion on historical events. For
poorly-informed politicians to skip that process and pretend that
they know more about history than historians do is unfair.
Just as it is unfair for politicians to disrespect historians, it is
equally imprudent for statesmen and the public to react in an immature
way to decisions that are a result of a poor understanding of history.
Next year, both the United States and Turkey may face the same
predicament over the issue of whether the tragedies of 1915 were a
genocide or not. Opinion and decision-makers should focus on cajoling
public and political opinion that there is no need for botched
responses. Overall, the best course to take would be to leave the
affair to Turks and Armenians.
1 May 2007
Barýn Kayaoðlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to
the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
--Boundary_(ID_GW0+iihzayokmrrBvDdE8w)--
Barin Kayaoglu
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
May 1 2007
Until last week, Turkish policy-makers were quite concerned that the
U.S. House of Representatives might pass a resolution recognizing
the events of 1915 as a genocide against the Armenian people. Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul and Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt
had spent time in Washington in February talking to American officials,
explaining the dangers of such a resolution.
April 24 (the symbolic anniversary that the Armenians claim was when
their "genocide" began in 1915) has come and gone and it seems that
the resolution has been conveniently swept under the rug.
That is very auspicious. Turkish politics is quite volatile right now
because of the presidential elections. On the one hand, there is much
cause to be hopeful that it is civil society and not the military that
is framing the debate. (Friday night's press statement by the Turkish
General Staff has thrown things off course but Turkey has the capacity
to sustain the turmoil.) People are voicing contrasting opinions in
different forums, most conspicuously in mass demonstrations. Perhaps
for the first time, the demos (people) are pushing for their kratos
(rule) in Turkey.
The genocide bill could have changed that. The feeling of being
"surrounded" worsens Turkish people's approach to regional and
international events. Discussions of the Armenian question are still
hostage to that feeling. As the Washington-based PEW Center's surveys
indicate, an overwhelming majority of Turkish people - justifiably
or not - perceive the United States as the greatest danger for world
peace at the moment. It is astonishing to note that Turkey, a formal
U.S. ally, records highest anti-U.S. sentiment in the Middle East.
One reason is that Turks believe that the United States is deliberately
provoking PKK-instigated terrorism from Northern Iraq.
Thus, had the resolution passed, American legislators could have
caused catastrophic damage to Turkish-American relations.
Substantively, a resolution would not have meant much. Turkey would
have still been an important regional power while the United States
would have continued its course as a global superpower. It would have
been cataclysmic, however, for ordinary Turks to become completely
incensed at the United States and to force their leaders to take a
tougher stance against Washington. Turkish decision-makers would have
followed suit.
In an ideal world, Turkey and Armenia should have solved their problems
long ago. However, the events of 1915 relate to the very genesis of
the two nations' self-perception. Both sides are unwilling to accept
that their ancestors did more than they admitted. Guilt was mutual,
although the degree of responsibility can be disputed.
But a self-righteous bill from Capitol Hill would have added fuel to
fire and derailed the respectable (albeit small) Turkish and Armenian
efforts to come to an understanding. For the first time since World
War I, Turkish and Armenian scholars are listening to the arguments of
the "other" side and they are doing it in a civilized manner. Some are
even accepting the viewpoints of the "other" side. For the first time,
there is a possibility that Friedrich Hegel's "thesis + antithesis =
synthesis" assertion can apply to Turks and Armenians.
It is worth noting that the House resolution was probably shelved
in order not to aggravate the situation in Turkey. However, Turkish
people should bear in mind that such resolutions and declarations
do not mean much. It takes historians a lot of research, writing,
editing, and re-editing to reach conclusion on historical events. For
poorly-informed politicians to skip that process and pretend that
they know more about history than historians do is unfair.
Just as it is unfair for politicians to disrespect historians, it is
equally imprudent for statesmen and the public to react in an immature
way to decisions that are a result of a poor understanding of history.
Next year, both the United States and Turkey may face the same
predicament over the issue of whether the tragedies of 1915 were a
genocide or not. Opinion and decision-makers should focus on cajoling
public and political opinion that there is no need for botched
responses. Overall, the best course to take would be to leave the
affair to Turks and Armenians.
1 May 2007
Barýn Kayaoðlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to
the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
--Boundary_(ID_GW0+iihzayokmrrBvDdE8w)--