About us | Advertising | Contact | Get Home Delivery | Archive
Mar 18, 2010 Homepage
News
Business
Interviews
Columnists
Op-Ed
Arts & Culture
Expat Zone
Features
Travel
Leisure
Life
Cartoons
Women
Health Briefs
Weird But True
Sports
Turkish Press Review
Today's think tanks
Turkey in Foreign Press

Columnists
ÖMER TAŞPINAR o.taspinar@todayszaman.com Columnists

Turkish-Armenian traumas


As we have once again witnessed over the weekend, Turkey and Armenia are two traumatized nations. Reconciliation between these two nations will be much more difficult than a crisis-prone signature ceremony.

Today's interactive toolbox
Bookmark and Share
Video Photo Audio
Send to print Send to my friend
Post your comments
Read comments
To be sure, liberal intellectuals from Turkey and Armenia will continue to communicate in English and manage to distance themselves from ethnic nationalism. But ordinary Turks and Armenians do not have such luxury. There is also the crucial factor of the Armenian diaspora. The diaspora will always be more intransigent than Armenia itself.

In order to fully understand the roots of the drama that unfolded in Zurich, we need to understand the Turkish and Armenian psyche. We also need to ask what brings these two peoples to the negotiating table. Let's start with the Turkish psyche. Turks have lost an empire in an agonizingly slow fashion. For 200 years, Ottomans lost war after war to more modern Western enemies. The unraveling was even more traumatizing inside the empire. Unable to understand the power of ethnic nationalism, the ruling elite came to hate and distrust ethnic minorities. The empire was at a loss as internal nationalisms led to separatism. Finally, Turkish nationalism emerged as the last nationalism of the empire, in reaction to all previous nationalisms. And it emerged with a vengeance. Its main objective was to save what was left of the empire.

Armenians, like Turks, were also latecomers to nationalism. They wanted their own state just like the Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians. But they were a century too late. It was only a matter of time before Turkish nationalism and such Armenian national aspirations were to confront each other. What followed is tragic. Armenian nationalism begot Turkish wrath. More than a million Armenians were wiped out from their territories. The majority were massacred during deportations.

Once the empire was gone, Turkey embarked on the most radical Westernization program the Islamic world ever witnessed. Yet, a century later, Turks are still not accepted as European by the Europeans. They suffer from an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the West and a superiority complex vis-à-vis the Arab world. They are torn between Islam and secularism, tradition and modernity, Europe and the Middle East. Turks are still traumatized by their identity and history. They still fear minorities and distrust the West they want to emulate.

And Armenians are of course still angry. Millions of Armenians across the world have their origins in Anatolia. They compare their tragedy to the Holocaust. They want justice. Some want revenge. To make things worse, there is also an Azeri dimension to this trauma, centered in Nagorno-Karabakh. Any potential Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, which would be complicated enough with the ghosts of the past, is now shadowed by the politics of Azerbaijan, itself a traumatized nation because of defeat in Karabakh.

Let's now try to understand what drives the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey. What fuels the reconciliation process despite such mutual traumas? As far as Turkey is concerned, the real reason seems to be the need to avoid a major crisis with the United States. Yes, it is certainly true that the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has been pursuing a “zero problem” policy with neighbors. That helps. But it is not a coincidence that there is a new sense of urgency to the talks this year, after the arrival of Barack Obama to the White House. Obama, no ordinary politician, has committed himself to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide. Turks don't want a new crisis with Washington. They are doing their best with these talks to give Obama a face-saving reward to keep genocide recognition at bay.

What about Armenia? Why are they willing to come to the table ? Most surprisingly, why are they willing to accept the Turkish terms for a history commission to investigate what happened in 1915? The current leadership of the Armenian state is from Karabakh. They are Eastern Armenians who are less traumatized than the Western Armenians wiped out in 1915. They have also won the war in Karabakh and thus can afford to be more pragmatic. But perhaps most important is the fact that Armenia wants to have options other than Russia. The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 changed regional dynamics in the Caucasus. Armenia now wants to have Western options. And this Western option requires a degree of normalization with Turkey in order to open the western borders of the country. At the end of the day, the Armenian and Turkish trauma will probably endure. But external conditions will help to alleviate the weight of history.

12 October 2009, Monday
ÖMER TAŞPINAR
Comments on this article

Tom Fuhrmann , Nov 07 2009 22:40, Saturday
Great article/historical context! A look at Armenia's borders show that their only access to the outside world is throu...
HP Geissen , Oct 19 2009 12:20, Monday
That was a good explanation, indeed. I want to add two issues. First, as a German it appears obvious that traumatizat...
habace , Oct 12 2009 22:22, Monday
The agreement really cannot be attributed to Obama's presence in Washington. The negotiations precede that event by a lo...

Click to read the details of comments
   
Articles of Today
Turkey and the SIPRI report
LALE KEMAL
Five questions for Mr. Başbuğ
HÜSEYİN GÜLERCE
Constructive ambiguity and destructive obscurity
KERİM BALCI
Will Turkey ever walk alone?
ANDREW FINKEL
Islam, democracy and Turkey
İBRAHİM KALIN
Wanted: democratic opposition in Turkey
MUHAMMED ÇETİN
Spring fever
PAT YALE
A direct intervention in the judiciary
FATMA DİŞLİ ZIBAK

Other Articles of the Columnist

  Turkish-Armenian traumas
  Obama’s Afghanistan conundrum
  What’s next for Iran?
  A timely report on Turkey-EU relations
  Turkey and Armenia inch closer
  Where’s the American conspiracy in all this?
  What is at stake in Afghanistan?
  Obama’s difficult summer
  Turkish-Russian pipelines of realpolitik
  Ankara’s Kurdish opening and Washington
  Iran and Iraq: diverging Shiite patterns
  Domestic determinants of Turkish foreign policy (2)
  Domestic determinants of Turkish foreign policy
  De-mystifying political Islam
  Iran’s legitimacy crisis
  Iran’s election: Free and fair?
  Obama’s speech and Pakistan
  Oil: blessing or curse for Iraqi Kurds?
  Turkey’s about-face in the Caucasus
  A grand bargain in the Middle East?
Columnists
ABDULHAMİT BİLİCİ
ABDULLAH BOZKURT
ALİ BULAÇ
ALİ H. ASLAN
AMANDA PAUL
ANDREW FINKEL
ASIM ERDİLEK
AYŞE KARABAT
BEJAN MATUR
BERİL DEDEOĞLU
BERK ÇEKTİR
BÜLENT KENEŞ
BÜLENT KORUCU
CHARLOTTE MCPHERSON
DOĞU ERGİL
EKREM DUMANLI
EMRE USLU
ETYEN MAHÇUPYAN
FATMA DİŞLİ ZIBAK
FİKRET ERTAN
GÜRKAN ZENGİN
HASAN KANBOLAT
HÜSEYİN GÜLERCE
İBRAHİM KALIN
İBRAHİM ÖZTÜRK
İHSAN DAĞI
İHSAN YILMAZ
KATHY HAMILTON
KERİM BALCI
KLAUS JURGENS
LALE KEMAL
MEHMET KAMIŞ
MICHAEL KUSER
MUHAMMED ÇETİN
MÜMTAZER TÜRKÖNE
NICOLE POPE
ÖMER TAŞPINAR
ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ
PAT YALE
ŞAHİN ALPAY
SELÇUK GÜLTAŞLI
SUAT KINIKLIOĞLU
YAVUZ BAYDAR