‘Genocide’ fatigue: newest hurdle in normalization process

This seems to be the case among the public in Turkey, as people overwhelmingly feel exhausted from annually watching a foreign legislative panel attempting to call their ancestors perpetrators of genocide against Anatolian Armenians, with whom they lived for centuries. Whether or not it is scientifically accepted, maybe it is a kind of a “spring depression” that could be seen as linked to Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). Yet, this year’s public anxiety is different than that of previous years, when similar resolutions recognizing claims of genocide against Anatolian Armenians under Ottoman rule during World War I were voted on in various US congressional committees -- thus it can’t be defined as a seasonal disorder.

This year’s irritation stems from the fact that this year, for the first time, there has been an ongoing process of normalization of ties with estranged neighbor Armenia -- efforts which also include a framework for contemplating historical facts and facing whatever the reality was in Anatolia during World War I.

As an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal on Friday titled “But Who Needs Allies? Congress poisons US-Turkey relations” summarized: “The diplomats at the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday [Thursday] adopted a view on the urgent matter of world events that transpired 95 years ago. By a 23-22 margin, the committee declared that the mass deportations and serial massacres of Armenians by Ottoman forces during World War I ought to be called a genocide. The vote has sparked a full-blown diplomatic spat with Turkey -- with Ankara recalling its ambassador to Washington -- but that’s really no big deal, says Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D., Calif.).”

Berman has a point in declaring that the vote’s outcomes are “really no big deal” vis-à-vis US-Turkey bilateral relations. Yet, “a big deal” has apparently emerged regarding the future of the normalization process between Armenia and Turkey, though Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu stated that Turkey would push on with efforts to normalize ties with Armenia despite the US vote.

“We are determined to press ahead with the normalization of relations with Armenia,” Davutoğlu told a news conference, while also emphasizing that the parliamentary ratification of the peace accords with Armenia was at risk, referring to the two protocols signed by Armenia and Turkey in Zurich on Oct. 10 -- the “Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations” and the “Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations.”

The deals, seen as crucial to obtaining long-term peace in the volatile Southern Caucasus, must be ratified by the parliaments in Ankara and Yerevan.

Normalization is a process that will be carried out by a mutual exchange of views between the two nations, Davutoğlu said, adding, “Further intervention by third parties will render this normalization impossible.”

What about April 25?

The fatigue observed among the public is best summed up with commonly encountered expressions -- the people are saying: “OK, what is the point? Let them pass this resolution so we can get rid of this tension forever.”

These feelings, nonetheless, also carry a tone that hints at a tendency that victimizes the normalization process as well, since the feeling of US pressure on Turkey is acceptable neither for the public nor the government.

Leaving aside what Armenia has or hasn’t done to advance the normalization process, and given that the current issue seems to be an urgent bilateral matter between Ankara and Washington, it may be useful to examine what Turkey and the United States have and have not done, or what they have been promising to do or not do.

Despite a strong expression of commitment from Ankara, it is still unclear how the normalization process can be dealt with under these circumstances, when Ankara will apparently have to exhaust much of its energy -- at least until April 24 -- on preventing US President Barack Obama from calling the Anatolian Armenians’ killings “genocide” in an annual White House statement on the day marking Armenian remembrance. Ankara will also have to mount a significant campaign to keep the resolution from being brought to the House floor for a vote.

As for April 25, Ankara hasn’t given any clues about its plans for moving forward with the normalization process if both a resolution on the House floor and Obama’s use of the g-word are avoided. The normalization process has already been crippled by Turkey’s insistence on parallel progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as by a ruling by the Armenian Constitutional Court. In January, while upholding the legality of the protocols, the court underlined that they could not contradict Yerevan’s official position that the alleged Armenian genocide must be internationally recognized.

Now, Turkey is expecting a written document or assurance either by Armenia or a third party that would be acceptable to both Armenian and Turkish sides that would state that the protocols are valid.

The fact that neither the US nor Switzerland -- which mediated closed-door talks between Armenia and Turkey that were held for more than a year on ways to restore diplomatic relations and open their mutual border before the two parties announced on April 22, 2009 that they had reached an agreement on a road map to normalize their relations -- are sympathetic to Ankara’s demand for such assurance poses further ambiguity regarding the future of the process.

And hypothetically assuming that such assurance is provided, how will Ankara fulfill its promise to push for the ratification of the protocols at the commission level when there is no improvement on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue?

US ‘awareness’

It would be naïve to believe that the US administration really reckoned that a last minute effort would be effective on the House committee members.

While making clear that the Obama administration was against the resolution and noting that they called Berman on Wednesday to try to persuade him to shelve the vote, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday: “We think that [the protocols] is the appropriate way to manage the problems that have stood in the way of normalization between the two countries. Within the protocols, there was an agreed-upon approach to establishing a historical commission to look at events in the past.”

The “Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations” says the two countries have agreed to “implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim of restoring mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.”

That brings to mind another question: Wasn’t the US administration aware of the content of the protocols when they let the US congressional committee go ahead with their plans since Berman first announced on Feb. 5 that he intended to call a committee vote on the non-binding resolution on March 4?

It’s hard to believe how the US administration failed to consider that the adoption of the vote would be seen as pressure on Turkey -- both on the public and the government -- over ratifying the protocols.

This is not the first time that hopes for a long-awaited new spring coming to Turkey, this time freshened up by the normalization process, have been crushed.

Back in October 2005, an İstanbul court’s conviction of Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink for insulting “Turkishness” -- a conviction which indirectly led to his assassination in January 2007 -- led to the same kind of feelings.

Tens of thousands of people marched during his funeral with tears. Those thousands and more in Turkey now need to be persuaded that Dink’s death will not be forgotten and that Turkey must continue its efforts to not let this country turn into a wasteland. Otherwise, bitterness among the public might yet turn into dangerous indifference to ties with their Armenian siblings.