Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan surprised his domestic and international audiences when on April 23, 2014 he issued what is probably the most conciliatory statement any Turkish official has ever penned on the almost century-old question of the Armenian Genocide. He’s sticking to central Turkish theses that refute the Genocide, but by offering his condolences to the grandchildren of the victims, he introduced perhaps for the first time an element of compassion to the discourse.
He also suggested, for the first time, that the discussions of the 1915 Armenian Genocide, when up to 1.5 million Armenians living in Ottoman territories were murdered, should be free and open. The reaction to the statement was predictable: wild enthusiasm by the Erdogan-controlled press; accusations of treachery among nationalist segments; and a “promising step, but more is needed” among the liberal and pro-democracy activists. Abroad, Western governments welcomed it, while the Armenian diaspora was wary, sensing a sinister motive behind the announcement—namely an attempt at derailing the campaign to secure international recognition of the Genocide on its 100th anniversary.
The increasing efforts toward the political recognition of the Armenian Genocide have been an albatross around Turkey’s neck for the last two decades if not longer. The 100th anniversary has definitely given the Armenian campaign a much-needed boost and rallying point. To date, President Barack Obama has refrained from using the word “genocide” in his traditional annual April 24 commemorative statement on the 1915 events. This is despite the fact that during the 2008 campaign he vociferously argued that he would recognize the Armenian Genocide for what it was. Instead he has used the expression “Meds Yeghern“, meaning “the Great Catastrophe” in Armenian. Every year, anticipation builds as April 24 approaches to see if the U.S. President will use the word “genocide.”
To date, Turks have loudly proclaimed that no genocide ever took place, and further have insisted on an alternative narrative: the Ottoman Empire, a victim of enemies at home and abroad, suffered equally. This became a favorite refrain of Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu; hundreds of thousands of Muslims died during World War I. Of course, the Ottoman victims, and they were unquestionably many, were not murdered by their own governments.
The Erdogan government toyed with the idea of an opening to Armenia, until it suddenly realized that its sister government in Azerbaijan was adamantly opposed to any improvement in relations between Turkey and Armenia given that the Azeris had been fighting the Armenians, and losing. The Turkish overture to Armenia was done in the context of a diplomatic effort better known as “zero-problems with the neighbors,” pushed by Davutoglu.
This was a difficult endeavor from the start. Turks are taught from a young age that not only the Genocide never occurred, but also that in fact, it was Turks who were murdered by armed Armenian gangs at the onset of World War I. That Armenians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire is certainly correct, but in the context of the time, why shouldn’t have they rebelled? After all, the Ottoman Empire was a large, multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire that had been constructed over centuries through war. Armenians were no different from other nationalities such as Greeks or Bulgarians in wanting independence. Hence societal atmospherics in Turkey have always been poisoned on this issue. This was made worse by a short-lived terror campaign against Turkish diplomats by what would turn out to be a rather inconsequential Armenian organization based in Beirut called ASALA. No one could really challenge the official dictum, and those few who did faced retribution, harassment and judicial proceedings.
Paradoxically and tragically, real change in Turkish society came with the 2007 assassination of Turkish-Armenian author, publisher and journalist, Hrant Dink. Images of his body lying on the pavement in the heart of Istanbul near his office shocked many Turks. As the state bungled the investigation, it became apparent that many were involved in the plot to assassinate Dink and that some were members of the state. Moreover, years of concerted and malicious slandering of Dink by arch-nationalists had paved the way for the killing of a Turkish citizen of Armenian descent whose primary concern was greater democracy for Turkey and not necessarily the Genocide question.
Dink’s murder provided an impetus for the mobilization of Turks for whom the Armenian Genocide was gnawing and unresolved problem. The murder opened a small space for pushing back on the state’s dominant narrative of treacherous Armenians. His death thus provided the impetus for a flourishing campaign aimed at reconciling not just Turks and Armenians but also Turks with their own past. Without such efforts Erdogan’s statement could never have happened.
Nevertheless, there is general and well-founded skepticism about the sincerity of Erdogan’s words. Is he trying to inoculate himself from increasing Western criticism of his penchant for greater authoritarianism? How is it possible that someone so partial to demonizing even the meekest of his opponents could utter such conciliatory words about the Armenians? Every day, the newspapers and the media closely aligned with him, thought by many observers to constitute a majority of the press, are full of invective against opponents real and imaginary. The level of this discourse is xenophobic, racist, and McCarthyite. Yet Erdogan has nothing to say about it. Quite the contrary, he and his ministers and acolytes further fuel the flames of intolerance.
Erdogan is a masterful and pragmatic politician. He may miscalculate, as he did in responding to the Gezi protests in May–June 2013. However, he never plays a card without some calculation of a return. This is politics, after all. Just as with the Kurdish opening that he initiated to begin resolving Turkey’s most difficult issue, this statement on Armenians represents a step forward. It is one that is difficult to walk back from. The proper response by Armenians and others ought to be to encourage him to move further, not just to test his sincerity but to also to begin resolving these thorny, fundamental differences.