HistoryofTruth.com - Armenian Allegations

Q: Do you think the recognition of the killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as 'genocide' by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee will harm US-Turkish relations, even after a veto on the issue by the Obama administration?

A: US-Turkish relations were already in difficulties even before the genocide resolution was passed by the committee, particularly because of the emphasis the AKP (Justice and Development Party) has been giving to cultivating closer ties with what are regarded as rogue states in Washington, such as Iran, Syria and Sudan. The problem for the US has been that it needs Turkish cooperation in Afghanistan and for any sanctions on Iran. The committee resolution has as much highlighted tensions in relations as it has caused them.

Q: What do you think about the future of the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia?

A: Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu is a clever man but Turkey’s foreign policy often appears naïve, particularly when it comes to how some of its attempts to cultivate closer ties with certain countries are perceived by others. Unlike nearly everyone else, the AKP does not appear to have understood that 'normalizing' ties with Yerevan at a time when Armenia was still supporting the occupation of a sizable proportion of Azeri territory would antagonize Baku. Prime Minister Erdogan’s subsequent threat to expel Armenian citizens living in Turkey was not only inaccurate – the number working in Turkey is generally agreed to be much closer to 10,000 than 100,000 – but racist as he made no mention of expelling other nationalities working illegally in Turkey. The rapprochement with Armenia was already in serious trouble even before the genocide resolution in the US. It is now dead.

Q: How would you estimate Armenian policy towards Turkey, I mean statements about willingness to normalize relations with Turkey on the one hand and attempts to get recognition of the 'genocide' on the other?

A: It is unrealistic to expect either Armenia or the Armenian diaspora to abandon their claims that there was a genocide in the early 20th century. Regardless of whether or not everyone agrees that one occurred, the genocide now lies at the heart of their conception of national identity. I think Armenia is sincere in wanting to open its borders and establish diplomatic relations with Turkey, provided that these things can be achieved without any concessions on Nagorno-Karabakh or the genocide.

It is important to distinguish between the Armenian state and the Armenian diaspora. Although the genocide is part of the ideological foundation of the Armenian state, it is the diaspora which is pushing the hardest for international recognition, not Armenia itself. 

Q: What are the chances of Obama using the word 'genocide' on 24 April after the decision by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the reaction of the US administration?

A: I don’t know. My feeling at the moment is that it is unlikely but not impossible that he will use the word. Much will depend on what else is happening at the time and whether the anniversary coincides with the US needing Turkey for something (e.g. sanctions against Iran). One has to remember that, during their election campaigns, both Obama and Hillary Clinton promised to recognize the genocide once they were in office. From this perspective, Turkey’s attempted rapprochement with Armenia was useful for them as it gave them an excuse not to deliver on the promises they made in 2008 – i.e. they can say that the circumstances are not appropriate at the moment as recognizing an atrocity in the past could jeopardize prospects for peace in the present. But this only holds true for as long as the rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia is still alive. At the moment it is dead, but not yet buried. So it is possible that Obama will be able to avoid using the word genocide in April as it is still possible to claim that there is a chance of reviving the rapprochement. But I am sure that, sooner or later, a US president will use the word – and it will be very difficult for Obama to ask for Turkish-Armenian votes in the 2012 election if he has not delivered on his promise to recognize the genocide.

Q: The Azeri authorities talk about a direct link between Turkey-Armenia relations and a settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Karabakh.  How may the 'genocide' issue influence the Karabakh settlement?

A: Nagorno-Karabakh is often referred to as a 'frozen conflict'. In this context, the furor over the genocide resolution could actually be beneficial as it could serve as a reminder that there is another – more recent and, arguably, much more urgent – issue to be resolved and put Nagorno-Karabakh on the agenda. Unfortunately for the US, its influence is limited. The only country with sufficient influence in the region to broker a settlement is Russia. But, if the West began to make noises about trying to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh, it could galvanize Russia into being more proactive as the last thing Moscow wants is for the West to come in and solve a problem in its 'near abroad'.

When it comes to peace, stability and prosperity in the Caucasus, the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh is much more important than recognition of the Armenian genocide. If there is progress on Nagorno-Karabakh, then not only will relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia benefit but also those between Turkey and Armenia – including Yerevan and Ankara establishing diplomatic ties, opening their common border etc. And history, in the form of the Armenian genocide, could be left to historians.