Tweet
Exchange
Shahan Kandaharian
Aztag Daily
April 8 2009
Lebanon
During the Monday joint press conference of presidents Obama and
Gul in Ankara, the first question directed to the US president was
about his pre-election pledge which underlined the necessity of the
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. President Obama said "My views
(with respect to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide) are on the
record and I have not changed views. What I have been very encouraged
by is news that under Pres.Gul's leadership, you are seeing a series
of negotiations, a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to
resolve a whole host of longstanding issues, including this one. I want
to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations which are
moving forward and could bear fruit quickly, very soon. And so, as a
consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views right now,
but focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If
they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history,
then I think the entire world should encourage them".
This statement conveys mixed messages. You can develope both positive
and negative interpretations on this concise statement by dissecting
its contents.
First and foremost, let us not forget that the statement was made
during president Obama's visit to Turkey. Those who are following the
unrolling of the events can deduce that the explicit recognition of the
Armenian Genocide could have stimulated an enormous reaction provided
that the whole country is already in a state of panic. Moreover,
one can deduce the political scandal by which president Obama's visit
would have ended and the general state of the US-Turkish relationships
afterwards. Judging by the current events and considering the content
of President Obama's address to the Turkish Parliament, it seems that
those relationships are at the verge of new fractures.
At the same time, however, the political pressure of having the
reputation of breaking a promise during the first term of presidency
will naturally cause some stances to be taken by the head of a country
promising a new world order and which represents an important political
pole. It's specially noteworthy that this president's success in the
elections was guaranteed by his slogan of "Change".
In these columns we have previously discussed the view that the issue
transcends the confirmation of the historical truth; it's more a matter
of taking steps based on national interests. We have also acknowledged
the fact that considering the above mentioned two factors, it seems
more realistic to go with a "median" at this stage.
What was stated in Ankara is in that "median". Let us clarify. First
of all, the announcement that "I have not changed views" makes us
assume that "I still believe in the importance of the recognition of
the Genocide". Senator and president Obama's convictions with respect
to the Armenian Genocide in the pre-election and post-election periods
remain the same. And President Obama makes that clear to the Turkish
political spheres and also to the whole world. The Armenian side
doesn't complain about that!
Let us now see which part of the mixed message satisfies the Turkish
side. "If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic
history, then I think the entire world should encourage them". What
does it mean to "deal with a difficult and tragic history"? In
political terminology, it is simply restating the necessity of the
formation of a joint committee of historians, which is the constant
demand of the Turkish state. After all it is up to historians to deal
with history and the idea of doing it together is a reference to a
joint committee.
There's another point that may have satisfied the Turkish
side. President Obama says that the normalization of the
Turkish-Armenian relations is a priority and discussions about his own
views may add weight on the balance-scale of either side disrupting
the current process.
It is possible to make a more detailed analysis of course. The
conclusion drawn from the dissection is clear: a statement containing
elements that would satisfy and dissatisfy both sides which can be
indicative of the contents of the Washington announcement in which
the use of the term "genocide" is not excluded.
The President may say, for example, "my views on the issue of Genocide
haven't changed but now we must concentrate on the normalization of
the Turkish-Armenian relationship as a priority" or that "the Turks
and the Armenians must evaluate the pages of history together" etc.
Is there any change seen in all of this? Certainly, but unlike the
contents of the pre-election rhetoric, here there's an exchange of the
understanding of inter-state interests more than a basic change. So
there's more EXCHANGE than CHANGE!
Shahan Kandaharian
Aztag Daily
April 8 2009
Lebanon
During the Monday joint press conference of presidents Obama and
Gul in Ankara, the first question directed to the US president was
about his pre-election pledge which underlined the necessity of the
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. President Obama said "My views
(with respect to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide) are on the
record and I have not changed views. What I have been very encouraged
by is news that under Pres.Gul's leadership, you are seeing a series
of negotiations, a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to
resolve a whole host of longstanding issues, including this one. I want
to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations which are
moving forward and could bear fruit quickly, very soon. And so, as a
consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views right now,
but focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If
they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history,
then I think the entire world should encourage them".
This statement conveys mixed messages. You can develope both positive
and negative interpretations on this concise statement by dissecting
its contents.
First and foremost, let us not forget that the statement was made
during president Obama's visit to Turkey. Those who are following the
unrolling of the events can deduce that the explicit recognition of the
Armenian Genocide could have stimulated an enormous reaction provided
that the whole country is already in a state of panic. Moreover,
one can deduce the political scandal by which president Obama's visit
would have ended and the general state of the US-Turkish relationships
afterwards. Judging by the current events and considering the content
of President Obama's address to the Turkish Parliament, it seems that
those relationships are at the verge of new fractures.
At the same time, however, the political pressure of having the
reputation of breaking a promise during the first term of presidency
will naturally cause some stances to be taken by the head of a country
promising a new world order and which represents an important political
pole. It's specially noteworthy that this president's success in the
elections was guaranteed by his slogan of "Change".
In these columns we have previously discussed the view that the issue
transcends the confirmation of the historical truth; it's more a matter
of taking steps based on national interests. We have also acknowledged
the fact that considering the above mentioned two factors, it seems
more realistic to go with a "median" at this stage.
What was stated in Ankara is in that "median". Let us clarify. First
of all, the announcement that "I have not changed views" makes us
assume that "I still believe in the importance of the recognition of
the Genocide". Senator and president Obama's convictions with respect
to the Armenian Genocide in the pre-election and post-election periods
remain the same. And President Obama makes that clear to the Turkish
political spheres and also to the whole world. The Armenian side
doesn't complain about that!
Let us now see which part of the mixed message satisfies the Turkish
side. "If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic
history, then I think the entire world should encourage them". What
does it mean to "deal with a difficult and tragic history"? In
political terminology, it is simply restating the necessity of the
formation of a joint committee of historians, which is the constant
demand of the Turkish state. After all it is up to historians to deal
with history and the idea of doing it together is a reference to a
joint committee.
There's another point that may have satisfied the Turkish
side. President Obama says that the normalization of the
Turkish-Armenian relations is a priority and discussions about his own
views may add weight on the balance-scale of either side disrupting
the current process.
It is possible to make a more detailed analysis of course. The
conclusion drawn from the dissection is clear: a statement containing
elements that would satisfy and dissatisfy both sides which can be
indicative of the contents of the Washington announcement in which
the use of the term "genocide" is not excluded.
The President may say, for example, "my views on the issue of Genocide
haven't changed but now we must concentrate on the normalization of
the Turkish-Armenian relationship as a priority" or that "the Turks
and the Armenians must evaluate the pages of history together" etc.
Is there any change seen in all of this? Certainly, but unlike the
contents of the pre-election rhetoric, here there's an exchange of the
understanding of inter-state interests more than a basic change. So
there's more EXCHANGE than CHANGE!