A Necessary and Positive Step
11.23.2006 Thursday
Zaman
By ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
Undoubtedly, one of the issues that has been giving Turkey the most trouble in recent years is the problem called the Armenian question; however, it has a multi-faceted character, and some of these facets are sometimes ignored. While one aspect of the issue is that a moment in history that is perceived and known differently by the two parties has reached a point where it can be discussed, at the same time, another aspect implies the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and the democratization of Turkey’s non-Muslim minority policy. However, the matter doesn’t end here… Since the world is global now, international and domestic politics are carried to a universal dimension by means of emigrant groups in the outside world, and the tension in the foreign countries sheltering the emigrants is used as a part of their own political search and tactics.
On the other hand, as is always the case in this kind of bottleneck, there are groups who aim to continue the tension on both sides and produce ideological profit for its own political community. Consequently, as a result of the multi-faceted pressure, demands and manipulations coming from both inside and outside, the Armenian issue creates paralysis. Because nation-state politics are based on an account of mutual compromise, instead of resolving the bottleneck, it wants to prolong it. Because whoever takes the first step will appear as having compromised in the eyes of it own nationalist sector, and, particularly in countries headed towards elections, taking these kinds of courageous steps in foreign policy becomes extremely difficult. As a result, “politics” is reduced to states mutually adorning themselves with a “constructive” image in an effort to show the other party as intransigent as possible.
In this way, the tendency of the periods of non-relations, which harm both sides, to continue forever is surrendered to…Until a change in conjecture that will break this mechanical balance appears and at least both parties agree that non-action is a risky position with a big price tag. This is the point to which we have come in the Armenian issue: In respect to the external conjuncture, the main change is, as everyone knows, the Democrats’ gaining a majority in the U.S. Congress after a long interval. Because there is a tradition of strong relations between the Democrats and the Armenian Diaspora and in an environment where the Bush administration is extremely fragile due to Iraq, the probability that a proposal for recognition of genocide will be passed by Congress is quite high. Of course, even if it is America, any country’s taking a political decision regarding history in another geographical land cannot be sanctioned. However, the U.S.’s acceptance of such a proposal may trigger a wave of “recognizing genocide” that will spread to other countries and drag Turkey to spiritual isolation in the global world.
For this reason, Turkey has to be pro-active regarding every facet of the subject called the “Armenian issue.” Even though the decision to “go to court” announced by the Foreign Affairs Ministry during the week appears to be courage imposed by necessity, it is a step taken in the right direction. If Armenia says yes to the workings of this kind of “arbitration” institution, at least both societies will have a chance to know our common history and understand events from the other’s point of view. However, of course, a legal decision includes a risk: No one can be one-hundred percent sure of which direction the decision will take… Consequently, regardless of what kind of decision is taken, it shouldn’t cause the losing party to become more introverted and give way to the habit of nurturing its identity with traumas. The way to do this is increasing as much as possible every kind of trade, cultural and social relations parallel to the judicial process. Even if the Turkish-Armenian border cannot be formally opened, it has to open in practice. Because the psychological atmosphere that will surround the discussions may cause not only the court to review history, but Turkey to review its current attitude.
11.23.2006
e-mail:e.mahcupyan@zaman.com.tr
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Zaman
By ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
Undoubtedly, one of the issues that has been giving Turkey the most trouble in recent years is the problem called the Armenian question; however, it has a multi-faceted character, and some of these facets are sometimes ignored. While one aspect of the issue is that a moment in history that is perceived and known differently by the two parties has reached a point where it can be discussed, at the same time, another aspect implies the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and the democratization of Turkey’s non-Muslim minority policy. However, the matter doesn’t end here… Since the world is global now, international and domestic politics are carried to a universal dimension by means of emigrant groups in the outside world, and the tension in the foreign countries sheltering the emigrants is used as a part of their own political search and tactics.
On the other hand, as is always the case in this kind of bottleneck, there are groups who aim to continue the tension on both sides and produce ideological profit for its own political community. Consequently, as a result of the multi-faceted pressure, demands and manipulations coming from both inside and outside, the Armenian issue creates paralysis. Because nation-state politics are based on an account of mutual compromise, instead of resolving the bottleneck, it wants to prolong it. Because whoever takes the first step will appear as having compromised in the eyes of it own nationalist sector, and, particularly in countries headed towards elections, taking these kinds of courageous steps in foreign policy becomes extremely difficult. As a result, “politics” is reduced to states mutually adorning themselves with a “constructive” image in an effort to show the other party as intransigent as possible.
In this way, the tendency of the periods of non-relations, which harm both sides, to continue forever is surrendered to…Until a change in conjecture that will break this mechanical balance appears and at least both parties agree that non-action is a risky position with a big price tag. This is the point to which we have come in the Armenian issue: In respect to the external conjuncture, the main change is, as everyone knows, the Democrats’ gaining a majority in the U.S. Congress after a long interval. Because there is a tradition of strong relations between the Democrats and the Armenian Diaspora and in an environment where the Bush administration is extremely fragile due to Iraq, the probability that a proposal for recognition of genocide will be passed by Congress is quite high. Of course, even if it is America, any country’s taking a political decision regarding history in another geographical land cannot be sanctioned. However, the U.S.’s acceptance of such a proposal may trigger a wave of “recognizing genocide” that will spread to other countries and drag Turkey to spiritual isolation in the global world.
For this reason, Turkey has to be pro-active regarding every facet of the subject called the “Armenian issue.” Even though the decision to “go to court” announced by the Foreign Affairs Ministry during the week appears to be courage imposed by necessity, it is a step taken in the right direction. If Armenia says yes to the workings of this kind of “arbitration” institution, at least both societies will have a chance to know our common history and understand events from the other’s point of view. However, of course, a legal decision includes a risk: No one can be one-hundred percent sure of which direction the decision will take… Consequently, regardless of what kind of decision is taken, it shouldn’t cause the losing party to become more introverted and give way to the habit of nurturing its identity with traumas. The way to do this is increasing as much as possible every kind of trade, cultural and social relations parallel to the judicial process. Even if the Turkish-Armenian border cannot be formally opened, it has to open in practice. Because the psychological atmosphere that will surround the discussions may cause not only the court to review history, but Turkey to review its current attitude.
11.23.2006
e-mail:e.mahcupyan@zaman.com.tr
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Labels: Turkey and Armenia
posted by Vahe Balabanian at 6:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home