Commentary
A prophetic Romanian novel about a town at the mouth of the Danube carries a warning: Europe decays when it stops looking outward. In a world of increasing insularity, the EU should heed its warning.
Thomas de Waal
{
"authors": [
"Thomas de Waal"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Türkiye",
"Caucasus",
"Armenia"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Armenia and Turkey: 2015 Begins Today
In his statement on the “Armenian Question,” Erdogan goes further than any other Turkish leader before him and offers condolences to the descendants of Ottoman Armenians. However, instead of rhetoric, it would be better for each of the nations to concentrate on normalizing Armenian-Turkish relations and opening the closed border.
Published on Apr 24, 2014
2015 begins today.
The statement by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the “Armenian Question” goes further than any other Turkish leader before him.
Never before has a Turkish leader offered condolences to the descendants of Ottoman Armenians. Erdoğan said that he and his government “wish that the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the early twentieth century rest in peace, and we convey our condolences to their grandchildren.”
But of course few people are merely reading the words themselves—which, in the context of Turkish history, read very well. They only look at the name of the speaker and the date of April 23, 2014: one day before Armenian Remembrance Day and one year before the centenary of the Armenian Genocide is marked.
So is Erdoğan's statement a sign of a change in Turkey or a calculating political maneuver?
It is both. Erdoğan's AKP government has done more for the Armenians than any Turkish government over the last 50 years. It has lifted the taboo on free discussion of the question of 1915, allowed ordinary Turks to use the word “genocide” and seen Armenian churches re-open in Turkey.
Yet, this is only the beginning of an acknowledgement of the huge tragedy that befell the entire Ottoman Armenian population—while the tone of the prime minister's remarks suggests that he wants this to be the end of the issue. And of course the Armenian-Turkish border remains closed.
The sad truth is that the annual round of statements on the Armenian tragedy every April 24 has now been completely devalued. Because of its use of the phrase “shared pain” and lack of the word “genocide,” the Armenian National Committee of America duly called Erdoğan's statement a “cold and cynical ploy.”
The ANCA missed the opportunity to give a more nuanced statement, just as they did in 2009 when they called a very dignified April 24 declaration by President Obama “yet another disgraceful capitulation to Turkey’s threats” because Obama did not use the word “genocide.”
The paradoxical effect is that Armenian organizations which say they speak for the Armenian dead of 1915 end up making April 24 a day of anger and politics, rather than mourning.
It would surely be better all round if everyone just abandoned their April 24 statements and their tortured language and concentrated on the real issues: how to honor the Armenian dead, what to do about Armenian architectural heritage in Turkey, re-writing Turkey's history books and—most importantly—normalizing Armenian-Turkish relations and opening the closed border.
As the 2015 centenary approaches, it is more likely that we will see more rhetoric and less action. But, if anyone was listening, the statement by the Turkish prime minister is an opportunity to encourage him and his government to take real steps to honor Armenians, living and dead.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Europolis, Where Europe Ends
- Japan’s “Militarist Turn” and What It Means for RussiaCommentary
For a real example of political forces engaged in the militarization of society, the Russian leadership might consider looking closer to home.
James D.J. Brown
- The Trump-Modi Trade Deal Won’t Magically Restore U.S.-India TrustCommentary
Washington and New Delhi should be proud of their putative deal. But international politics isn’t the domain of unicorns and leprechauns, and collateral damage can’t simply be wished away.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
- From Loss and Damage to Climate Mobility ActionCommentary
Senior climate, finance, and mobility experts discuss how the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage could unlock financing for climate mobility.
Alejandro Martin Rodriguez
- Europe Falls Behind in the South Caucasus Connectivity RaceCommentary
The EU lacks leadership and strategic planning in the South Caucasus, while the United States is leading the charge. To secure its geopolitical interests, Brussels must invest in new connectivity for the region.
Zaur Shiriyev
