Tweet
G-WORD STAYS OUT OF TURKEY
John Boonstra
UN Dispatch
http://www.undispatch.com/node/8018
April 6 2009
According to the dictates of pragmatism, one couldn't have reasonably
expected President Obama to drop the g-word -- referencing the genocide
of the Armenians in World War I, which Turkey has persistently refused
to label as such -- while speaking in Turkey, his campaign promise to
do so notwithstanding. And, in fact, the portion of Obama's speech
in Turkey addressing the issue, while perhaps evasive, did address
the matter in a commonsensically productive manner.
While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this
is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the
past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people
is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest,
open and constructive.
Whether or not the President of the United States of America says the
word genocide is indeed a political calculation. The politicization
of this usage of a single word stems partially from U.S. domestic
politics (which is why it will be much more interesting to see if and
how Obama pivots when he makes the president's traditional statement
to Armenian-Americans in a couple weeks) and partially from the heavy,
almost all-consuming significance that the word has acquired (and
which, four and a half years after President Bush declared Darfur
a "genocide," to much fanfare and little action, is clearly not
productive). And in this sense, what matters more is that Turkey and
Armenia deal with this issue, and with their own relations with one
another. The opening of the closed Armenian-Turkish border is no small
accomplishment, and, though it may appear to be simply this year's
entry in the annual casuistry explaining the particularly inopportune
timing of a genocide resolution, achieving tangible ends can lay claim
to an upper hand over a declaration that everyone assures will derail
progress on some Turkey-related foreign affairs project or another.
Yet for a dialogue between Turkey and Armenia to be truly "honest"
and "open," truths need to be acknowledged -- and spoken aloud. It is
morally repugnant that Turkey continues to deny that genocide occurred
within its bounds, and the international coup that its leaders have
consolidated -- convincing the world that any mention of a "genocide"
of the Armenians would provoke waves of hostility and summarily end
cooperation with Turkey -- is even more perverse. Somehow, the onus
is consistently placed on external actors -- such as on an American
president -- over the consequences that his words may engender. Never
is it considered how out of proportion -- how utterly ridiculous --
it would be for a Turkish government in 2009 to sever all relations
with countries, to entirely cease its contributions to projects like
that in Iraq, and to take all sorts of other rash steps that might
jeopardize its own admission to the European Union, all over the use
of a single word by a single world leader, about the actions of a
government 90-plus years ago.
Yes, we are talking about genocide, and that is serious. But no, we are
not talking about accusing a foreign government of conducting genocide
(again, though, on the effectiveness thereof, see Sudan). We are doing
what President Obama himself did in his speech, in acknowleding the
dark parts of American history, or what the government of Australia
is belatedly doing, in apologizing to the aboriginal population that
suffered in that country's history. Calling a genocide a genocide is
a moral imperative, yes, but it would be better for all involved --
for the Acholi people in northern Uganda, for example, who suffer
ethnicity-based counter-insurgency campaigns without worldwide
hand-wringing (or attention) over the g-label -- if the term coined
by Raphael Lemkin were less fraught with political overtones.
More than a moral decision, though, this should be a constructive
one. Leverage should be concentrated on Turkey acceding to
this judgment, not on urging the United States not to upset some
geopolitical balance that bears striking similarity to what Turkish
genocide-deniers would readily have the West believe. Would this be
"poking a stick in [Turkey's] eye?" Only, if, effectively, Turkey is
allowed to continue holding the stick. Order will not devolve into
chaos in Turkey if we talk about the Armenian genocide in 1915 publicly
and openly; the incentives weigh very heavily against Turkey acting
recklessly in retaliation to such discussion. And then, perhaps,
we would not have to again be having this debate next year. That,
to me, seems like moving forward.
(image of Armenian Genocide Memorial, in Yerevan, Armenia, from flickr
user Rita Willaert under a Creative Commons license)
John Boonstra
UN Dispatch
http://www.undispatch.com/node/8018
April 6 2009
According to the dictates of pragmatism, one couldn't have reasonably
expected President Obama to drop the g-word -- referencing the genocide
of the Armenians in World War I, which Turkey has persistently refused
to label as such -- while speaking in Turkey, his campaign promise to
do so notwithstanding. And, in fact, the portion of Obama's speech
in Turkey addressing the issue, while perhaps evasive, did address
the matter in a commonsensically productive manner.
While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this
is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the
past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people
is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest,
open and constructive.
Whether or not the President of the United States of America says the
word genocide is indeed a political calculation. The politicization
of this usage of a single word stems partially from U.S. domestic
politics (which is why it will be much more interesting to see if and
how Obama pivots when he makes the president's traditional statement
to Armenian-Americans in a couple weeks) and partially from the heavy,
almost all-consuming significance that the word has acquired (and
which, four and a half years after President Bush declared Darfur
a "genocide," to much fanfare and little action, is clearly not
productive). And in this sense, what matters more is that Turkey and
Armenia deal with this issue, and with their own relations with one
another. The opening of the closed Armenian-Turkish border is no small
accomplishment, and, though it may appear to be simply this year's
entry in the annual casuistry explaining the particularly inopportune
timing of a genocide resolution, achieving tangible ends can lay claim
to an upper hand over a declaration that everyone assures will derail
progress on some Turkey-related foreign affairs project or another.
Yet for a dialogue between Turkey and Armenia to be truly "honest"
and "open," truths need to be acknowledged -- and spoken aloud. It is
morally repugnant that Turkey continues to deny that genocide occurred
within its bounds, and the international coup that its leaders have
consolidated -- convincing the world that any mention of a "genocide"
of the Armenians would provoke waves of hostility and summarily end
cooperation with Turkey -- is even more perverse. Somehow, the onus
is consistently placed on external actors -- such as on an American
president -- over the consequences that his words may engender. Never
is it considered how out of proportion -- how utterly ridiculous --
it would be for a Turkish government in 2009 to sever all relations
with countries, to entirely cease its contributions to projects like
that in Iraq, and to take all sorts of other rash steps that might
jeopardize its own admission to the European Union, all over the use
of a single word by a single world leader, about the actions of a
government 90-plus years ago.
Yes, we are talking about genocide, and that is serious. But no, we are
not talking about accusing a foreign government of conducting genocide
(again, though, on the effectiveness thereof, see Sudan). We are doing
what President Obama himself did in his speech, in acknowleding the
dark parts of American history, or what the government of Australia
is belatedly doing, in apologizing to the aboriginal population that
suffered in that country's history. Calling a genocide a genocide is
a moral imperative, yes, but it would be better for all involved --
for the Acholi people in northern Uganda, for example, who suffer
ethnicity-based counter-insurgency campaigns without worldwide
hand-wringing (or attention) over the g-label -- if the term coined
by Raphael Lemkin were less fraught with political overtones.
More than a moral decision, though, this should be a constructive
one. Leverage should be concentrated on Turkey acceding to
this judgment, not on urging the United States not to upset some
geopolitical balance that bears striking similarity to what Turkish
genocide-deniers would readily have the West believe. Would this be
"poking a stick in [Turkey's] eye?" Only, if, effectively, Turkey is
allowed to continue holding the stick. Order will not devolve into
chaos in Turkey if we talk about the Armenian genocide in 1915 publicly
and openly; the incentives weigh very heavily against Turkey acting
recklessly in retaliation to such discussion. And then, perhaps,
we would not have to again be having this debate next year. That,
to me, seems like moving forward.
(image of Armenian Genocide Memorial, in Yerevan, Armenia, from flickr
user Rita Willaert under a Creative Commons license)