Does recalling envoys really work as a foreign policy tool?

“It is the lightest way of displaying a diplomatic reaction. However, it cannot be a measure on its own, and it cannot be claimed that the problem is solved as a result, ” said Professor Sedat Laçiner of the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK). He added that, however, he thought Turkey  achieved what it was aiming for through recalling its ambassadors. “It was a message particularly to the US, and I think Korutürk was recalled just to maintain a consistent reaction,” he said. While asked if recalling ambassadors could hinder Turkey’s representation there, he noted that presently Tan and Korutürk are more useful in Ankara than they could have been in Washington and Stockholm.

Turkey accepts that many Armenians died in the 1915 incidents, which also claimed the lives of Turks, Kurds and other inhabitants of the region at the time, but strongly denies the killings on the Armenian side were systematic and constituted genocide. Turkey’s proposal to open state archives for historians to study the relevant documents and conclude the dispute was not welcomed by Armenia, which refuses entry to its own archives. The resolutions in the US and Sweden narrowly passed on March 4 and 11, respectively, immediately after which Turkey recalled its envoys from both countries.

Süleyman Şensoy of the Turkish Asian Center for Strategic Studies (TASAM) slightly differed from Laçiner in his assessment of Turkey’s move, where he put a particular emphasis on the need for employing tools of public diplomacy rather than coercive measures. “Recalling ambassadors has its place in professional diplomatic language, and if you do not give a proper reaction in the first place, the consequences may worsen, too. However, a reaction to a decision taken under pressure of non-state actors as was the case in the Armenian resolutions should also be in the form of campaigns carried out by non-state actors,” he said, detailing his suggestion by stating potential roles that could be played by NGOs and universities. “Ways out of such matters certainly pass through public diplomacy,” he concluded.

Recalling ambassadors counterproductive

Stressing that the action should have definitely been more coercive, Turkish Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies (TÜRKSAM) President Sinan Oğan stated that recalling ambassadors was too weak a measure against political decisions taken by states without having substantial information regarding a historical dispute. “Carrying out genocide is the heaviest of all crimes, and it is terribly wrong for states that are not even aware of what really happened almost 100 years ago to make political decisions here. Nothing could therefore be more natural than Turkey reacting to them, but the way to do that should have certainly been more coercive. Recalling an ambassador carries no meaning other than giving a message. And the message here was too weak,” he said.