The dreaded day arrived once again, and US President Barack Obama did not use the word “genocide” in the written statement he issued on April 24, the day on which Armenians commemorate the incidents of 1915. What did he do instead?
He used the phrase “Meds Yeghern,” which literally translates to the “Great Tragedy” in English and “Büyük Felaket” in Turkish, but which is actually the proper rendering of genocide in the Armenian language. Apparently, Obama’s middle-of-the-road approach satisfied neither Turks nor Armenians. But we cannot still say that it has failed to also make both sides partially happy. Although Obama appears to be more pro-Armenian, both Armenians and Turks seem to be content with Obama’s evenhanded formulation.
Indeed, what I am trying to say was well put by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan when he, speaking about Obama refraining from using the word genocide, said: “Some groups had different expectations. Mr. Obama knew well about our sensitivities. So he did not make a statement to that effect.” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu was less happy with Obama’s statement than the prime minister as he said, “We do not consider Mr. Obama’s statement correct, and it is not acceptable.” Pointing out that Turkish-US relations should be freed from such traps, Davutoğlu added, “If we are all supposed to share our pains from a humanitarian point of view, then we expect our pains to be shared as well.”
The official statement from the Turkish Foreign Ministry edges closer to a harsher and sharper tone: “We deeply regret this statement, which reflects an incorrect and one-sided political perception. The toughest enemy of historical facts is subjective memory. No nation has the right to impose its memory on another nation. Third counties neither have the right nor authority to judge the history of Turkish-Armenian relations with political motives.” As far as I can understand from this statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry has chosen not to focus on the wording of Obama’s statement but to underline that it is categorically wrong for a country to make statements about the history of another country.
Frankly, as a Turk whose great-grandfathers and great-granduncles were killed by Armenians and Russians in the chaotic environment of 1915, I am sincerely trying to understand the great tragedy that Armenians suffered. Still, I feel I must note here, though not with a view to offer a comparison of the sorrows of the two sides, that the tragedy was not experienced by only one side and that Turks and Muslims suffered great persecution and massacres at the hands of Armenian gangs and militias that were provoked, supported, trained and armed by Russia and European countries.
To put it bluntly, in my opinion, the term that best describes what happened at that time is never “genocide.” As a person who is well aware that many Armenians still live in Malatya, the city where I was born and grew up, and have warm relations with Turks involving mutual respect, I do not think that the unfortunate incidents that occurred were ever a deliberately conducted genocide. Despite the fact that the Armenian presence in these lands was largely erased due to this tragedy, I do not believe it can be properly depicted as “genocide.” In the final analysis, these lands correspond to a geography that saw a plethora of great tragedies in the early 20th century. One of these disasters undoubtedly befell the Armenians within a historical context. But I do not think the tragedies that Muslims in the Caucasus and in the Balkans, particularly the Circassians, suffered were inferior to the Armenian tragedy. It is true that only a small Armenian population was left in Anatolia, but shouldn’t the fact that only very few Turks and Muslims were left in the Balkans and Eastern Europe tell us something? When events are not assessed within their historical context, it becomes inevitable for us to be fooled or make an unfair choice among great tragedies, knowingly or unknowingly.
This is what Obama says in his statement about what happened in 1915: “Today is a day to reflect upon and draw lessons from these terrible events. I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed. It is in all of our interest to see the achievement a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts. The Meds Yeghern is a devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people, and we must keep its memory alive in honor of those who were murdered and so that we do not repeat the grave mistakes of the past. I salute the Turks who saved Armenians in 1915 and am encouraged by the dialogue among Turks and Armenians, and within Turkey itself, regarding this painful history. Together, the Turkish and Armenian people will be stronger as they acknowledge their common history and recognize their common humanity.”
Indeed, by referring to statements he made before being elected as president, stating, “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed,” Obama is saying “genocide” by implication. This is already the perspective taken by the Washington-based Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) in assessing Obama’s statement. All in all, Obama had said as a senator in a statement he made in January 2008, “As president, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.” In October 2008, Obama reiterated his views, “I believe that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.” For the AAA, Obama not only incorporated those statements, but again used the Armenian term “Meds Yeghern,” over the objections of Turkish officials. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in his capacity as president, Obama avoided using the word “genocide,” which has political, moral and legal consequences, and did not make a move to bind the US government and Ankara. But should we be content with human Obama saying something about a tragedy and President Obama saying something else about it? I am not sure. It is for this same reason that another Armenian organization in the US, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), says they were disappointed by Obama’s April 24 statement and criticizes him for not keeping his promises.
It should be noted that this statement came at a time when, as a move to influence Obama ahead of April 24, Yerevan announced that it froze the ratification process of the protocols signed with Turkey, and the powerful Armenian lobby in the US was exerting great pressure on Obama to urge him to recognize the 1915 events as genocide. It should also be remembered that this lobby’s efforts had culminated in the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passing a resolution calling on the US administration to recognize the Armenian genocide in March, and Turkey had recalled Turkish Ambassador to the US Namık Tan in response.
At the end of the day, we can say there is no US president other than Ronald Reagan who could describe the 1915 events as genocide. All Turks can be relieved as it seems Obama, too, will not change this tradition. But is it enough to ease our conscience? I don’t think so. For me, what happened in the past really occurred and became part of the past. It is of no use to anyone to reopen the wounds from the past. Rather, we should focus on today and tomorrow. It may sound too utopian, but what I wish is that the Turkish government would stop wasting time with these futile efforts and invite all Armenians around the world who want to live in Anatolia to this country as a sign of goodwill and humane values. Turks and Armenians should be given another chance to bury the great and common sufferings of the past. Thus, no one will care about what Obama says or what Yerevan does.
Bulent Kenes/Today's Zaman
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
