They do not.That Ronald Reagan used the "g-word" in the early '90s and that even Gerald Ford used it before may come as a surprise to some but, more importantly, the world knows that the White House believes it was genocide. That policy has remained the same despite the fact that it was disguised in a sophisticated set of formulations.
This explains the outrage among the major figures of Turkey's political sphere: They know the White House knows. But the surprise is the open dismay among the major figures of the Armenian diaspora, who pretend not to have grasped the extraordinarily harsh tone that defines President Barack Obama's text. It goes beyond a single legal term and tears into the heart of the tragedy -- deep into its humane dimensions. Its nature of inviting a debate, rather than closing it with a single word, should be more than welcomed by Turks, by Armenians and by all third parties.
Robert Fisk's article ("Obama falls short on Armenian pledge"), published by The Independent yesterday, was therefore based on a complete lack of wisdom, ignores the crucial dimension of addressing the consciences in order to leave each and every individual a space to decide to use whatever terminology s/he prefers. Fisk's derives from an elitist view, believing that imposing a word on politicians will be sufficient, though it leaves the ignorant crowds in shock and fury.
In fact, Obama's approach brings truth closer to hearts. It puts, as the former diplomat Temel İskit pointed out in his column in the Taraf daily yesterday, the "g-word" has been put into parentheses and place on stand-by.
Fisk's shallowness, combined with the ignorance and ill-intent by some ultranationalist Turkish columnists (as two sides of the same coin), not only neglects the positive side of the "negative perception" of all sides (Turks, Armenians and Azerbaijanis) of Obama's statement, but also entirely misses the point of how brave Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan, Turkish President Abdullah Gül, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have been so far in breaking the ice (most credit must go to the latter, who in the last minute defied the evil forces of the status quo).
At such junctures of complexity, the broad context can often be overshadowed. As there may be something new and something not so new in Obama's speech, there are also new elements in Turkey's policies on 1915, which have not been conveyed at all.
Is the Turkish Republic's state still in sheer denial of what happened in 1915? "No," argues a scholar and a colleague, Mensur Akgün, the director of the Global Political Trends Center, Kültür University in İstanbul. In an interesting article published by the daily Referans, Akgün blames the entire Turkish political class of fearing to take a clear stance and calls them to make public the official Turkish position.
A radical shift occurred in 2005 in Ankara. Until then, the position was "nothing of that kind happened; if anything, it was the Armenians who massacred the Turks." It all changed in early 2005, when Erdoğan sent a letter to then Armenian President Robert Kocharian. In that letter, the Turkish prime minister suggested that a joint history commission be founded to investigate history. The core idea of the letter was based on Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, argues Akgün. Accepting to form a commission, as has now been agreed upon by the two countries, means that Ankara has left behind the denial and moved -- though not fully -- ahead. Does it also mean a sincere commitment of the findings or just a game of delay? That we do not know, but a move it is.
I agree with Akgün when he complains that both Gül and Erdoğan, courageous as they have been, have not gone the extra mile of enlightening the domestic opinion of the official position. Akgün is right when he regrets that an important opportunity was missed when Erdoğan reacted to Obama's statement; that he could have used that occasion to prevent the hysterical diversion of the debate to "selling out" and "losing Azerbaijan," led by fierce ultranationalists.
Indeed. Had he -- or Gül -- done that, the gates of declaring deep regret over the Great Catastrophe -- or "Catastrophes" -- would have been opened, marking another historic turn of Turkish politics. But, there is still time -- until 2015. The sooner Ankara shows empathy, the better because there are very few survivors of the tragedy -- or tragedies -- left.
