The political room for maneuver offered by this concept has created an ideological monopoly for discourse unique to each of the sides for a long time. This prevents the visibility of the diversity of ideas and at the same time, leads to making sense of the social debates and conflicts only based on the word "genocide."However, the reality is much more complicated than this. Many people with Turkish identity are calling this incident "genocide" and many more are ready to accept what had happened without using this word. Likewise, we see that what the Armenian diaspora and the wider Armenian world are actually after is the recognition of the experience. On the other hand, the word "genocide" makes the 1915 incidents ordinary, depriving them of personality within the confines of a general category. Obama's use of the phrase "Meds Yeghern" (Great Calamity) in harmony with this general psychological quest may serve as a hint for both sides. Perhaps, they may realize that the important thing is not to accuse, but to understand, which is possible only by way of being courageous enough to look back into one's singular past.
However, the initial reactions imply that this is not the case. This is and should be understandable as neither those who use "genocide" as political leverage nor those who camouflage the matter through the demonization of the term "genocide" will like this potential initiative. Even with an interpretation based on the nationalistic perspective, we can even argue that some groups in Turkey are more content with the phrase "Meds Yeghern" than the term "genocide." This is because they know how to react to the term "genocide," for example, by way of pigeonholing and making the history inaccessible for a certain time. On the other hand, Obama's choice takes us directly to 1915 and calls on us to look at the past not through the window of some concepts devised later, but with the perspective of those who experienced it.
At a time when the possibilities for opening the border crossing with Armenia are being discussed, this initiative may come to express a more permanent normalization. Indeed, abandoning the strategy of approaching that day as a sphere of conflict can be done only by dispensing with the perception of the past as a source of conflict.
However, Turkey is really having a hard time passing through this psychological bottleneck and this will be so for some time. For a society that has been intentionally left ignorant, that has to rebuild an entire history by looking at it through the window of the official prism of the state and that has newly started to realize that it knows nothing but does not know how to access to the correct information, it is possible to overcome this bottleneck in a single move. We should not forget that in this country, national identity is not the "property" of society but of the state and that society feels indebted to the state for that identity. For this reason, Turkish society cannot confront the truth with regard to the issues that concern its identity if its state is not ready for that confrontation.
In this context, Turkey's proposal to set up a "joint commission of historians," which was accepted by Armenia in a responsible manner, may serve as a means for Turkey to overcome this psychological barrier. As a matter of fact, while it can be used to bring the issue to stalemate, such a commission can also be employed to diversify and normalize the debates. In a society where real life experiences were left in such a profound obscurity, historical details, human stories and a case of solidarity will be extremely important. After so many accusations directed against it, Turkish society needs to be "appreciated" and history is ripe with evidence for such appreciation. As recompense for carrying the burden of the crime of a group of people who acted in the name of the state, perhaps a way can be found to take pride in this society that could have resisted even against the state.
Apparently, there will be many points of disagreement during the working period of the joint commission of historians. But, interestingly, there will be at least two issues on which both sides can readily agree. The first is the slippery politics of European countries, and the second is the protection afforded by thousands of Muslim families to their Armenian neighbors. Today, when you talk with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Party (Dashnak Party), the most nationalist party in Armenia, you will realize that this fine distinction is made with an accompanying sense of gratitude. They say that the genocide was performed by the nationalists while Muslims acted as their saviors in many cases and provide examples of such solidarity.
In other words, this would-be joint commission of historians can be used to produce an approach that would bring these two societies together on a humanitarian and conscientious basis and that will bring about a joint longing for the past experiences. Yet, this platform should not be seen as a means for another conflict or as a tool for bringing the other side to its knees. A great majority of Armenians will justifiably assume a dubious stance toward such a commission and find it strange to discuss an issue as if nothing is known despite the presence of thousands of documents and proof. But, the primary purpose of this commission will be not to find out the "truth," but to serve as a vehicle for overcoming a psychological threshold.
In this process, Turkish society will learn anew not only the Armenian issue, but also its entire history. Fairness urges us to give this opportunity. It should not be forgotten that any demand for fairness concerning the past can be answered if you can manage to be fair today.
