Tweet
A TIME TO HEAL INSTEAD OF ARGUING OVER THE GENOCIDE WORD, TURKS SHOULD MEND FENCES WITH THE ARMENIANS
The Economist
April 16 2015
Apr 18th 2015
NOTHING inflames the present like the past. When Pope Francis said
on April 12th that the "first genocide" of the 20th century was of
the Armenians in 1915, Turkey angrily recalled its ambassador to the
Vatican. Far from being resolved, the argument over exactly what to
call the death of as many as 1m-1.5m Armenian citizens of the Ottoman
empire still spreads hatred. This fight does nothing for Turks and
Armenians--nor for the century-old memory of the victims.
At issue is not the terrible fate that befell the Armenians of eastern
Anatolia, in massacres, forced labour and death marches towards the
Syrian desert. It is whether to use the word "genocide". Historians
differ, not just Armenians and Turks, on whether extermination was
a side-effect or the intention, as genocide requires. As America's
president, Barack Obama has talked only of the Meds Yeghern ("great
crime" in Armenian), despite promising the Armenian lobby as a
candidate to call it genocide. Yet, on the face of it, the facts
support Pope Francis, not least because Raphael Lemkin, the Polish
lawyer who coined the word in 1943, cited the Armenian case.
By treating the dispute as a matter of vital national interest, the
Turkish government is falling into a nationalistic trap. Instead
it should admit past sins. Like other European powers, including
Britain, Germany and Russia, it has plenty to acknowledge. Turkey
has in the past mistreated, deported or killed not only Armenians but
also Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds. But it also has reasons for pride,
for the Ottoman empire was, for example, often more tolerant of its
ethnic minorities, including Jews, than the rest of Europe was.
Today's Turkish government can also boast of improvements in its
treatment of minorities. As Turkey's president and founder of the
Islamist Justice and Development (AK) party that forms its government,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has distanced himself from the narrow secular
nationalism of Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey's founder. He is
tantalisingly close to making peace with the Kurds, the country's
biggest minority, a goal that has eluded all his predecessors. And
last year he bravely offered condolences, if not an apology, to the
grandchildren of the Armenian victims of 1915 (see article).
Yet of late, Mr Erdogan has taken on an angrier, more nationalistic,
Islamist and autocratic tone. This is making it harder for him not
just to get on with his neighbours but also to preserve Turkey's
pro-Western credentials as a bulwark of NATO and prospective member
of the European Union. That is why Turkish twitchiness over what
happened in 1915 is so counter-productive. Better would be to try,
once again, to repair relations with the Armenians.
Fence-mending in Anatolia
After a bout of "football diplomacy" in 2008-09 Turkey and Armenia
signed protocols that would have allowed their border to be reopened.
But the protocols were never ratified, not because of the genocide
row, but because the Turks insisted as a condition on the resolution
of the frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey's ally,
over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet the best chance
of solving Nagorno-Karabakh would be better relations--and an open
border--between Turkey and Armenia, which otherwise feels hemmed in
and dependent on the dubious prop of Russian support.
For ordinary Armenians, the most promising idea for marking the 100th
anniversary of the terrible events of 1915 would be to regain direct
access to their sacred mountain of Ararat and to their ancient capital
of Ani, both of which are now blocked off in Turkey. For Turkey, too,
the best memorial would be improved relations with Armenia.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21648640-instead-arguing-over-genocide-word-turks-should-mend-fences-armenians-time
The Economist
April 16 2015
Apr 18th 2015
NOTHING inflames the present like the past. When Pope Francis said
on April 12th that the "first genocide" of the 20th century was of
the Armenians in 1915, Turkey angrily recalled its ambassador to the
Vatican. Far from being resolved, the argument over exactly what to
call the death of as many as 1m-1.5m Armenian citizens of the Ottoman
empire still spreads hatred. This fight does nothing for Turks and
Armenians--nor for the century-old memory of the victims.
At issue is not the terrible fate that befell the Armenians of eastern
Anatolia, in massacres, forced labour and death marches towards the
Syrian desert. It is whether to use the word "genocide". Historians
differ, not just Armenians and Turks, on whether extermination was
a side-effect or the intention, as genocide requires. As America's
president, Barack Obama has talked only of the Meds Yeghern ("great
crime" in Armenian), despite promising the Armenian lobby as a
candidate to call it genocide. Yet, on the face of it, the facts
support Pope Francis, not least because Raphael Lemkin, the Polish
lawyer who coined the word in 1943, cited the Armenian case.
By treating the dispute as a matter of vital national interest, the
Turkish government is falling into a nationalistic trap. Instead
it should admit past sins. Like other European powers, including
Britain, Germany and Russia, it has plenty to acknowledge. Turkey
has in the past mistreated, deported or killed not only Armenians but
also Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds. But it also has reasons for pride,
for the Ottoman empire was, for example, often more tolerant of its
ethnic minorities, including Jews, than the rest of Europe was.
Today's Turkish government can also boast of improvements in its
treatment of minorities. As Turkey's president and founder of the
Islamist Justice and Development (AK) party that forms its government,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has distanced himself from the narrow secular
nationalism of Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey's founder. He is
tantalisingly close to making peace with the Kurds, the country's
biggest minority, a goal that has eluded all his predecessors. And
last year he bravely offered condolences, if not an apology, to the
grandchildren of the Armenian victims of 1915 (see article).
Yet of late, Mr Erdogan has taken on an angrier, more nationalistic,
Islamist and autocratic tone. This is making it harder for him not
just to get on with his neighbours but also to preserve Turkey's
pro-Western credentials as a bulwark of NATO and prospective member
of the European Union. That is why Turkish twitchiness over what
happened in 1915 is so counter-productive. Better would be to try,
once again, to repair relations with the Armenians.
Fence-mending in Anatolia
After a bout of "football diplomacy" in 2008-09 Turkey and Armenia
signed protocols that would have allowed their border to be reopened.
But the protocols were never ratified, not because of the genocide
row, but because the Turks insisted as a condition on the resolution
of the frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey's ally,
over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet the best chance
of solving Nagorno-Karabakh would be better relations--and an open
border--between Turkey and Armenia, which otherwise feels hemmed in
and dependent on the dubious prop of Russian support.
For ordinary Armenians, the most promising idea for marking the 100th
anniversary of the terrible events of 1915 would be to regain direct
access to their sacred mountain of Ararat and to their ancient capital
of Ani, both of which are now blocked off in Turkey. For Turkey, too,
the best memorial would be improved relations with Armenia.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21648640-instead-arguing-over-genocide-word-turks-should-mend-fences-armenians-time