Turkey, Armenia and President-elect Obama: what next?

Bad timing in foreign policy decisions can make even the most attractive initiatives look hollow. This is indeed the case with the current chorus of calls for conciliatory steps and gestures towards Armenia. These calls have become more vocal in the wake of Obama’s election as U.S. President. The pundits defending this position argue that Turkey should take the initiative in order to dissuade the new American President from supporting Armenian genocide claims and do all it can especially before the critical date of April 24. The emphasis is on timing and on the need to act now. Unfortunately, however, this chorus of well-intentioned appeals is ill timed and as a result, misplaced as well.

President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden, the designated Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the leadership in both wings of the Congress have all in the past identified with the Armenian thesis. During the election campaign, Obama made explicit promises to the Armenian lobby in writing to recognize the claimed genocide. They and many others on Capitol Hill actually believe the Armenian version of events. There is therefore a greater risk (this time) than ever that both the White House and the Congress might this time accept the Armenian narrative, accusing the Turkish side of genocide.

At the same time, the Armenian lobby will surely exert its maximum effort to seize this opportune moment in American history. The distribution of the political cards seems to favor their chances of realizing their long cherished goal of imposing their claims on the U.S. Government.

The Armenian community is first to press for the "g" word in the traditional April 24 declaration by the U.S. President and than to take their case to the Congress. Knowing that the stakes are uniquely high this time, the Armenians will try to obtain the widest possible assurance for the acceptance of their views before making their moves. In other words, Turkey, the Turkish-American community and American friends of Turkey are going to face their toughest challenge yet in the upcoming Obama Presidency.

In the light of this political backdrop in the United States, it is probably not wise for the Turkish Government to make any new gestures toward Armenia before April 24. First, the aim of any Turkish move would be too obvious and look like a political bribe. Second, it may add fuel to the Armenian claim that pressure on the Turks works. Third, it may not have the desired effect on the White House and/or the Congress after all. Finally, rather than focusing on the United States, any steps taken by the Turkish side in this connection should be part of a broader strategy to engage Armenia and the Armenians in a full-fledged dialogue with Turkey to resolve all the outstanding issues between them.

The logic for Turkey taking steps now is presumably to put off the use of the "g" word in the April 24 Presidential declaration and to prevent the passage of Armenian resolutions in the Congress. However, I would argue that it is better for Turkey to wait and see what President-elect Obama does after he takes office and offer him the opportunity to take a constructive, balanced stance on this issue.

As the Turkish proverb goes, "fear does not help change the destiny of death." The new President must balance his country’s national interest at stake in relations with Turkey against the expectations of the Armenian American community. He should then be encouraging dialogue and contact between the Turks and the Armenians at all levels and calling on the two sides to engage one another.

If that proves to be the case, then Turkey should respond rapidly and take a series of steps, including the opening of the border, to help and encourage Armenia for full engagement with Turkey.

The logic of this path is not mere prevention, but resolution of the issue. In terms of timing, therefore, it is wiser for the Turkish Government to wait until after April 24 before taking any measures with respect to Armenia.

In this connection, the latest campaign by some Turkish citizens to apologize to the Armenians is misguided and inappropriate. These individuals certainly have the right to interpret historical events as they see fit and to express their interpretations freely. Of course, they would do well were they to share with the rest of us how they researched their subject matter in reaching their conclusions.

However, the critical point here is whether they have the right to apologize even in a purely individual capacity. I think not. First, genocide, according to the 1948 U.N. Convention, is a crime committed by "persons." There is no ruling by an international tribunal that such and such committed genocide against the Armenians. There is on the other hand no credible evidence that the Turks perpetrated such crime. In the absence of any persons found guilty of the crime, who is apologizing for whom?

Second, despite the U.N. Convention, the Armenians level the accusation of genocide against the Turkish nation en masse. Under the circumstances, no group of Turks, irrespective of their status in society, has the privilege of separating themselves from the others and arrogating the right to "apologize" over such an issue. As they also refer to the "great calamity" which in the Armenian lexicon is "genocide," their action implicates all the Turks, despite the protestations of individuality.

Finally, if the apology reflects just humanitarian considerations, we should all join in. However, it must then be reciprocal. Whatever happened, both Muslims and Armenians suffered the consequences. Were Armenian intellectuals to start a similar campaign of apology to the Turks, it would help the two sides to engage in a more constructive dialogue.

Without such reciprocity, a unilateral Turkish campaign would at best be superfluous, if not harmful to the future of Turkish-Armenian relations.

The campaign’s timing is unfortunate as well. It could help the Armenian proponents to argue that it is time to proceed with the recognition of genocide allegations because even in Turkey, they would now be able to say, it is finding acceptance. President-elect Obama might feel less hesitant in allowing Armenian resolutions pass in the Congress.

"Wait and see" option does not at all mean that we should just sit tight and do nothing as Obama takes office. Quite the contrary, the Turkish Government should continue to convey its views and its concerns to the new American administration through all possible channels. This is especially important before the new White House puts final touches on the course of action it will follow regarding Turkey and Turkey-related issues. We should also make clear to President-elect Obama and his team that Turkey fully intends to pursue the positive trend that emerged after President Gül’s historic visit to Erivan. The United States should nurture this constructive spirit currently prevailing in Turkish-Armenian relations. This would not only help give birth to possible new openings and progress between Turkey and Armenia, but also have a salutary effect on the resolution of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Timing is crucial. President Gül’s visit triggered a positive trend and removed psychological barriers on both sides. If, however, the Turkish Government moves now before President-elect Obama signals his direction on the matter, progress in the Turkish-Armenian tract might be more difficult to achieve, if not altogether impossible. Hence, the basic message of the Turkish side at this stage to the new White House should be "encourage the continuation of dialogue and contacts between Turkey and Armenia; make America a part of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement."



Dr. Faruk Loğoğlu served as Turkey's ambassador to Washington D.C. between 2001 and 2005.