The committee voted 23-22 to approve the non-binding resolution, clearing it for consideration by the full House. The resolution calls on President Barack Obama to ensure US policy formally refers to the massacre as genocide, putting him in a tight spot. Although Turkey has faced the risk of the resolution being approved and has encountered the prospect of this trauma prior to every April, this year the feared event has been realized. Analysts who wrote their columns before the conclusion of the voting in the US assessed the issue from many perspectives, including the environment in Turkey before the US vote and the need to focus on the moral side of the issue as well as the need for Turkey to develop well-grounded arguments to fight “genocide” supporters instead of begging for support from lobbies. Yeni Şafak’s Fehmi Koru talks about the environment in Turkey during this time every year when he says Turkey experiences an “Armenian trauma.” “This is not a new thing. For as long as I have known myself, an Armenian resolution has been prepared to be submitted to the US Congress at this time of year and everyone wonders how the US president will refer to the Armenian killings in 1915 in his April 24 speech. Turkey undergoes a one-month period of trauma with the frequent use of the word ‘Armenian.’ If the Armenian resolution is hampered at the very last moment and the US president does not use the ‘g’ word in his speech and instead refers to the killings as a ‘tragedy,’ Turkey takes a deep breath and busies itself with other issues until the same time next year,” explains Koru. In this year’s environment, he sees a difference and notices, interestingly enough, that some circles in Turkey were willing the approval of the resolution and the emergence of a crisis between Turkey and the US.
Leaving aside all the political debates on the Armenian killings and how to define them, Radikal’s İsmet Berkna dwells on the need to focus on the moral side of the issue and says a humanitarian tragedy that took place in the Anatolian territories is in question. “We all know that such a tragedy took place, we are only debating how to describe it. When this tragedy is referred to as a ‘great massacre,’ we are not saddened but when it is referred to as ‘genocide,’ we feel humiliated,” says Berkan who regrets the lack of a moral attitude toward the essence of the issue in Turkey. “The issue of voting on the resolution, whether we like it or not, is a moral issue. So, we should have a moral answer to give. But we still continue not to give that answer and fall into a position of denial,” he adds.
Everyone knows how the Armenian “genocide” resolution places Turkey in a difficult position before every April each year, says Star’s Nasuhi Güngör, who thinks Turkey has produced very fragile policies regarding this issue so far. “The allegations of genocide have been nourished, they have been given a certain shape and Ankara has not gone beyond being an onlooker. Then, the same scenario takes place. The Jewish lobby saves us from the Armenian resolution by making a last-minute move. This is the breaking point,” says Güngör, regretting that Turkey has spent years relying on lobbies instead of taking steps to address Armenian allegations and the actors who bring them forward.
