This question flared up recently when the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives of Turkey's “strategic ally” the United States on March 4 adopted a resolution to call on the president to declare the deportation and massacre of Ottoman Armenians in 1915 genocide. A week later, on March 11, the parliament of Sweden, Turkey's strongest supporter in the European Union, adopted a resolution calling for the recognition of not only the genocide of Assyrians, but also Armenians and Pontic Greeks in Turkey. The Swedish parliament became the 20th parliament to recognize the “Armenian genocide.” Protesting the resolutions, the Turkish government recalled its ambassadors to Washington and Stockholm for consultations, in a measure not taken when the French, German, Italian, Polish and Russian parliaments had adopted similar resolutions.
There are different approaches to the “Armenian problem” in Turkey, both on a societal and a governmental level. Most of those who have some knowledge of the events of World War I in the Ottoman Empire subscribe to the official line which basically argues that what took place was reciprocal killings by Muslims and Armenians. Among them there are also those who share the concern that if the Armenian massacres were to be recognized as genocide, Armenians would demand property restitution and compensation, and Armenia would make territorial demands on Turkey. There is, however, also a minority of others in Turkish society, in growing numbers, at least since 2005, who recognize that the massacre of Ottoman Armenians was a great human tragedy, if not an intentional genocide comparable to the Holocaust, and claim that the Armenians deserve at least an apology.
These people organized, soon after the Turkish government proposed to the government of Armenia negotiations towards normalization of relations between the two countries, a conference in İstanbul that addressed the question “What happened to the Ottoman Armenians?” When Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was murdered by ultranationalists (suspected of having ties with the Turkish “deep state”) in 2007, at least 100,000 people walked behind his coffin shouting “We are all Armenians!” In 2008, over 30,000 people signed a declaration apologizing to their “Armenian sisters and brothers” for what happened in 1915. And when President Abdullah Gül visited Yerevan that same year, a retired ambassador suggested that the Turkish government pay, even if symbolic, indemnities to the families of the victims of the deportation and extend Turkish citizenship to those of them who would so wish.
There are, however, differences of opinion amongst a minority. A smaller group believes that the genocide resolutions adopted by an increasing number of parliaments help Turkey to face its history. The greater part believes that parliaments are not entitled to pass judgment on history, that the resolutions are motivated not only by humanitarian, idealistic considerations but also by hopes of winning votes in elections or to take revenge on Turkey for this or that reason. They think that for Turkey to face up to history it is necessary for the veil of ignorance among Turkish people covering the fate of the Ottoman Armenians to be lifted with the help of the normalization of ties between Turkey and Armenia. They assess the genocide resolutions negatively because they trigger a nationalistic backlash and thus hinder the normalization of relations. I firmly belong to this group.
Turning to the governmental level, one may argue that the current Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey differs from all previous governments that have refused to establish diplomatic ties with Armenia and closed the borders when Armenians invaded Azerbaijan in the war over Nagorno-Karabakh. This government suggested to the Armenian government in 2005 negotiations towards normalization of the relations between the two countries, and the negotiations moved as far as the two sides signing protocols last October to establish diplomatic relations and open borders. Ratification of the protocols has unfortunately stalled, mainly due to Ankara, under pressure from Azerbaijan, with which it has close cultural and economic ties, and the powerful Azeri lobby in Turkey declaring ratification dependent on Armenia taking steps towards normalization with Azerbaijan. And, unfortunately Armenia, which is occupying a fifth of Azerbaijan's territory, forcing close to a million Azeris to become refugees in their own country, shows no sign of taking steps in that direction.
There is a difference of opinion concerning the AKP government's policy among those who want Turkey to face its history. Some believe that it is no different from previous governments in denying the Armenian genocide or tragedy. Others give credence to the idea that the AKP government, too, discreetly believes that normalization with Armenia is necessary if Turkey is to ever face its history. It is possible also that the AKP government is divided in itself over these lines.
What can be done at this stage to help solve Turkey's “Armenian problem”? That is the subject of another column.
