Thoughts on Armenian-Turkish Relations

It is no secret that Turkey is currently going through a major crisis, a struggle between the secular-nationalist elites and the patriotic-reforming, slightly religiously inclined, democratically elected government in place.

The hard-line secular-nationalists have gone so far as to bring a court case against the government accusing it of betraying Turkey’s secular heritage and seeking to have it outlawed under certain esoteric provisions in Turkey’s constitution. This is a wild and unexpected turn of events.

These radical machinations are a fight for Turkey’s soul, and the fight is growing ugly. I would not have imagined such a crisis even a few years ago. It shows that Turkey has a long way to go to becoming a truly democratic and multi-ethnic state. This internal crisis has thrown off my expectations of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation in the not too distant future; but in any case I will describe what could be the best possible scenario under the present circumstances. One can always hope against hope.

First, I still have hope that Turkish civil society is growing strong enough to make a difference. The evidence so far is certainly inconclusive. The secular-nationalists are making their last stand and apparently will stop at nothing. In cases where the extremists are at war, the moderates are no longer listened to. One can only hope that the situation will change for the better, that the voice of the moderates will be heard once more amid the clamor of the struggle.

Secondly, I believe the Erdogan government has been trying to appease the so-called “deep state,” the elite reactionary forces, by carrying on a fruitless but intensive campaign against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and by allowing the military to make incursions into northern Iraq against so-called “Kurdish rebels.” I had been hoping that the government was appeasing the reactionary nationalists until it solidified its position in power, and that then, at the appropriate time, it would attempt to bring peace between Turks and Kurds, and Turks and Armenians. That would be a clever political move worthy of Erdogan.

I am sure that the vast majority of the Turkish establishment realizes that the Young Turk government did, indeed, carry out a policy intended to uproot the Armenians from their traditional homeland and exterminate them by sending them on lethal death marches into the burning deserts of Syria. As Talat Pasha said to Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, “I have done more to solve the Armenian question in one year than Abdul Hamid II did in a lifetime.” That is a clear sign of premeditation, indeed.

I also see that many independent-thinking Turks, including many prominent Turkish scholars, are trying to educate the Turkish population on the realities of Turkish history, which includes the unjust lethal treatment of Armenians. Many of these scholars, however, are disinclined to use the G-word (genocide) for fear of alienating the Turkish masses and closing their minds to new thinking before it can take root. I think Armenians should work with such high-minded people, whom I personally admire, although politically speaking it is not enough. Nevertheless, it is these scholars and educators who are preparing the ground for political change by building a fresh constituency in Turkey for recognition.

The real question is whether those leading the anti-genocide recognition drive can ever be reached. As unlikely as it seems, it is a distinct possibility. Thinking in terms of real politik, these people must realize that they are losing the battle of international recognition. Their attempts to avoid recognition have backfired over and over again, bringing the Armenian Genocide to almost universal public acknowledgment, as evidenced by the positive world-wide attention the Armenians received during the recent debate over the recognition by the U.S. Congress of the Armenian Genocide. Such recognition passed the House of Representatives in 1975 and 1984, and the initiative is not dead even today.

There are only two countries, in my estimation, that can help these denialists realize they are only making matters worse for Turkey with their public ineptitude. I believe that both the United States and Israel see great negative implications in backing, for purely political reasons, Turkey’s denialism. I think both the United States and Israel see denialism as an albatross around their necks, forced on them by Turkey’s reactionary politicians, and are behind the scenes trying to convince the nationalistic Turks that confession would be the better policy.

It is well known in American business circles that when a company makes grave mistakes injuring the public, the best policy is to openly confess, make apologies, offer some restitution, and then get on with life. Those who let the problem drag on by denying it, as Turkey is doing, suffer continuous negative consequences that are quite counterproductive in the long run.

The Turkish state has much more to gain by confessing to the Armenian Genocide than by its inept, counterproductive policy of denial. The question that they have to contemplate is what kind of restitution would satisfy the Armenians, what would bring this conflict to an end? Here, any Armenian commentator who tries to second-guess the Armenian public is stepping out on a slippery slope. No matter what they might advise, there is no question that they will be subject to heated and bitter criticism from one quarter or another. I certainly would never consider going down that road. It would be public suicide.

I will take a different approach, however, and explain what I think the Turkish government will be willing to give to put this nagging problem behind it. First, I don’t believe they would be willing to give up land under public pressure. No state historically has willingly done this kind of thing. Even Great Britain will not give up Gibraltar to Spain, or the Falkland Islands to Argentina, two territories of little account to anyone.

Secondly, I don’t believe they would do anything that puts them under criminal liability. No state would allow its citizens to be prosecuted for a 90-year-old crime, no matter how heinous. Nevertheless, I do think that civil restitution, in some form or another, is a distinct possibility. In other words, I believe that the Turkish state in the not too distant future would seriously consider making some sort of financial restitution to the Armenians, preferably to individuals or recognizable groups of individuals, namely to those who can make reasonable claims. There is even more it might be willing to do in terms of restitution.

I believe the Turkish government might consider the return of Armenian properties, once owned by the community, back to Armenian community foundations. I also expect that they might be willing to lift all of the burdensome and inequitable limitations on Armenian public life in Turkey. That is, Turkey would recognize its legal and moral responsibilities under the Treaty of Lausanne.

Finally, I believe that Turkey might be willing to restore Armenian monuments and to publicly recognize the contributions of Armenians to Anatolian civilization and indeed to the Turkish state itself. And, of course, all this is based on the assumption that Turkey will first lift the embargo against Armenia, attracting the positive attention of the Armenian people.

Is any of this possible? I think so. The world is growing smaller each year, national borders—particularly in Europe—have less and less meaning, populations currently are being mixed, exclusive nationalism is on the wane, and the world is in travail. Changes are coming rapidly. Anything can happen. Who knows what might be expected in the near future? Wise people, however, think of various possible scenarios and plan ahead. Armenians should do no less.