Tweet
Tufts Daily, MA
April 28, 2008
Armenian Genocide issue requires sustainable solution
By Harout Harry Semerdjian
This month, the world once again commemorates the 1915 mass killings
and deportation of over two million Armenians by the Young Turk regime
of the Ottoman Empire. Ninety-three years after the first genocide of
the 20th century, the United States and the international community
should, at last, compel the leadership of Turkey to seek a real and
sustainable solution to the Armenian Genocide issue by ensuring that
the country comes to terms with its past, as well as adopts some
much-desired changes in its policies toward Armenia.
The Armenian issue is one of the main foreign policy challenges for
the Turkish state today, which emerges not only in its policies toward
Armenia, but also in its relations with countries on nearly every
continent of the globe. Vehemently denied by Turkey, the 1915 events
have been accepted as genocide by over 20 countries of the world,
including such important nations as France, Russia and Canada. In
addition, 40 out of the states have affirmed the Armenian massacres as
genocide, and this reality should not be dismissed as mere local state
politics. These states, covering a huge portion of the country both in
terms of geography and population, speak the voices of their
people. Given this trend, then, it may be only a matter of time for
the remaining 10 states to follow the footsteps of the others - which
may eventually compel the United States government to affirm the 1915
events as genocide.
Last year, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee brought the
Armenian Genocide Resolution to a vote in the full House of
Representatives, it was certain that the resolution would pass with a
majority of at least 227 co-sponsors. However, with threats of an
invasion of northern Iraq (which eventually took place) as well as a
possible halt to military relations with the United States, Turkey was
successful in convincing the White House to use its acute leverage
over several congressmen to pull out their support from the
resolution.
But this cannot be interpreted as a political victory for Turkey for
several reasons, the most important being that the congressmen have
not argued against the reality of the Genocide. They have cited
Turkey's geo-strategic importance for the United States, and at least
one congressman who temporarily withdrew his support has explicitly
stated that "it is a good resolution and horrible timing." In other
words, these congressmen have arrived at the conclusion that genocide
took place in 1915 and they are ready to support legislation that
would set the U.S. record straight on this historical issue, but they
will vote on it when their dependence on Turkey regarding Iraq
subsides. Hence, the resolution has been postponed to sometime this
year - but it will undoubtedly resurface.
It would be na've and premature to interpret this development as a
final "victory" for Turkey. Rather, it can be seen as Turkey having
indirectly bought some precious time - which should not be
wasted. Turkey, foremost, has to use this opportunity to directly
communicate with Armenia on this issue in order to avoid third
parties, such as the U.S. Congress, from legislating history. Turkish
leaders should immediately consider opening the border with Armenia
and establishing diplomatic relations with the country. This move
would not only help build bridges between the countries and their
societies through economic and cultural contacts, it will also allow
the two sides to understand and assess the issues amongst
themselves. Without any preconditions, Armenia has already expressed
its desire to open the border and establish relations between the two
countries.
The Turkish leadership has very explicitly expressed its extreme
discontent with the congressional resolution as well as similar
preceding resolutions internationally. Doubtless, introduction of such
resolutions will not stop here and will only escalate in the coming
months and years, particularly as the 100th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide nears.
I believe Turkey has an important opportunity here to prevent third
countries from adopting resolutions on the Armenian issue by taking on
the matter directly and officially with Armenia. Until then, the
Armenian Diaspora, largely a creation of the great dispossession and
mass deportations of Armenians in 1915, will continue to push for
recognition through their home countries. This brings no real benefit
to either Turkey or Armenia; it mainly brings a short-term
psychological comfort to diaspora Armenians, who see no results on the
issue between their homeland and Turkey and feel compelled to take the
matter into their own hands. The United States and the international
community should therefore challenge the Turkish leadership to adopt
changes in its Armenian policy, which will undoubtedly benefit both
sides and help build long-overdue bridges between the two nations.
Harout Harry Semerdjian, a Doctoral Candidate at the University of
Oxford, is an alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and
the University of California, Los Angeles. He may be reached at
[email protected]
April 28, 2008
Armenian Genocide issue requires sustainable solution
By Harout Harry Semerdjian
This month, the world once again commemorates the 1915 mass killings
and deportation of over two million Armenians by the Young Turk regime
of the Ottoman Empire. Ninety-three years after the first genocide of
the 20th century, the United States and the international community
should, at last, compel the leadership of Turkey to seek a real and
sustainable solution to the Armenian Genocide issue by ensuring that
the country comes to terms with its past, as well as adopts some
much-desired changes in its policies toward Armenia.
The Armenian issue is one of the main foreign policy challenges for
the Turkish state today, which emerges not only in its policies toward
Armenia, but also in its relations with countries on nearly every
continent of the globe. Vehemently denied by Turkey, the 1915 events
have been accepted as genocide by over 20 countries of the world,
including such important nations as France, Russia and Canada. In
addition, 40 out of the states have affirmed the Armenian massacres as
genocide, and this reality should not be dismissed as mere local state
politics. These states, covering a huge portion of the country both in
terms of geography and population, speak the voices of their
people. Given this trend, then, it may be only a matter of time for
the remaining 10 states to follow the footsteps of the others - which
may eventually compel the United States government to affirm the 1915
events as genocide.
Last year, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee brought the
Armenian Genocide Resolution to a vote in the full House of
Representatives, it was certain that the resolution would pass with a
majority of at least 227 co-sponsors. However, with threats of an
invasion of northern Iraq (which eventually took place) as well as a
possible halt to military relations with the United States, Turkey was
successful in convincing the White House to use its acute leverage
over several congressmen to pull out their support from the
resolution.
But this cannot be interpreted as a political victory for Turkey for
several reasons, the most important being that the congressmen have
not argued against the reality of the Genocide. They have cited
Turkey's geo-strategic importance for the United States, and at least
one congressman who temporarily withdrew his support has explicitly
stated that "it is a good resolution and horrible timing." In other
words, these congressmen have arrived at the conclusion that genocide
took place in 1915 and they are ready to support legislation that
would set the U.S. record straight on this historical issue, but they
will vote on it when their dependence on Turkey regarding Iraq
subsides. Hence, the resolution has been postponed to sometime this
year - but it will undoubtedly resurface.
It would be na've and premature to interpret this development as a
final "victory" for Turkey. Rather, it can be seen as Turkey having
indirectly bought some precious time - which should not be
wasted. Turkey, foremost, has to use this opportunity to directly
communicate with Armenia on this issue in order to avoid third
parties, such as the U.S. Congress, from legislating history. Turkish
leaders should immediately consider opening the border with Armenia
and establishing diplomatic relations with the country. This move
would not only help build bridges between the countries and their
societies through economic and cultural contacts, it will also allow
the two sides to understand and assess the issues amongst
themselves. Without any preconditions, Armenia has already expressed
its desire to open the border and establish relations between the two
countries.
The Turkish leadership has very explicitly expressed its extreme
discontent with the congressional resolution as well as similar
preceding resolutions internationally. Doubtless, introduction of such
resolutions will not stop here and will only escalate in the coming
months and years, particularly as the 100th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide nears.
I believe Turkey has an important opportunity here to prevent third
countries from adopting resolutions on the Armenian issue by taking on
the matter directly and officially with Armenia. Until then, the
Armenian Diaspora, largely a creation of the great dispossession and
mass deportations of Armenians in 1915, will continue to push for
recognition through their home countries. This brings no real benefit
to either Turkey or Armenia; it mainly brings a short-term
psychological comfort to diaspora Armenians, who see no results on the
issue between their homeland and Turkey and feel compelled to take the
matter into their own hands. The United States and the international
community should therefore challenge the Turkish leadership to adopt
changes in its Armenian policy, which will undoubtedly benefit both
sides and help build long-overdue bridges between the two nations.
Harout Harry Semerdjian, a Doctoral Candidate at the University of
Oxford, is an alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and
the University of California, Los Angeles. He may be reached at
[email protected]