Turkey and Armenia
Genocidal follies
Oct 4th 2007 | ISTANBUL AND YEREVAN
>From The Economist print edition
The trouble that might flow from an American congressional resolution
A RECENT evening in Istanbul, Turkey’s (and Europe’s) biggest city.
Armenia’s leading musician, Djivan Gasparyan, is playing his duduk, an
Anatolian-style clarinet, as Yavuz Bingol, an ethnic Kurd, belts out Turkish
folksongs. The event symbolises a budding rapprochement between ordinary
Turks and Armenians. But America’s Congress may now torpedo this fragile
process by voting for a bill calling the mass slaughter of up to 1m Ottoman
Armenians in 1915 a genocide.
Turkey has squashed previous attempts to pass such a bill by exploiting its
strategic significance and its clout as NATO’s only Muslim member. This time
officials fret that not only will a congressional committee approve the
resolution but also it may pass on the House floor. Turkey says that this
would plunge relations with America into deep crisis. "Placing the Turks in
the same category as Nazis is intolerable for us," says one official.
Possible retaliatory measures might include denying the Americans the use of
the Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey, which is a hub for the supply of
non-combat materiel for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey
could also seal its land border with Iraq. With positive Turkish views of
America at a low of only 11%, according to a recent German Marshall Fund
poll, such moves might give nationalists in Turkey a big boost.
Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, whose Californian district includes many
rich Armenians, is unswayed by pleas to back down. Eight former secretaries
of state have written to her to argue that, besides endangering "our
national security interests", the bill would kill "some hopeful signs
already that both parties are engaging each other". Vartan Oskanian,
Armenia’s foreign minister, retorts that "expressing concern about a process
that doesn’t exist is disingenuous". His own recent meeting with his Turkish
counterpart, Ali Babacan, in New York got nowhere.
Turkey has no diplomatic ties with Armenia and refuses to open its border
with the landlocked ex-Soviet republic. This was sealed in 1993 after
Armenia occupied a chunk of Azerbaijan in a vicious little war. Air links
have been restored, however, and recently Turkish diplomats have hinted at a
more dramatic move: formalising ties, over the objections of a vocal Azeri
lobby in Turkey, not to mention those of its hawkish generals. In exchange
Armenia would have to recognise its border with Turkey and make some
conciliatory gesture towards Azerbaijan.
Armenia counters that it wants to restore relations "without preconditions".
That is because of a widespread suspicion that Turkey is feigning change
merely to derail the genocide resolution. If Turkey were sincere, say the
Armenians, it would scrap article 301 of the penal code, under which
intellectuals have been prosecuted for daring to call the Armenian tragedy a
genocide. On October 3rd Turkey’s new president, Abdullah Gul, duly called
for changes to article 301 in a speech to the Council of Europe.
Turks claim that they want to delink the issues. As one official puts it,
"we strongly believe in decoupling our ties with Armenia from the genocide
bill and feel that over time the relationship will flourish on its own
merits." Should the bill be adopted in Congress, though, a change in policy
would become impossible because of the nationalist passions it would stoke.
These worries are shared by Turkey’s Armenians, still reeling from the
murder in January of an ethnic Armenian newspaper editor, Hrant Dink. Mr
Dink’s lawyers claim that the nationalist teenager who shot him was acting
under orders from rogue elements within the security forces.
David Shahnazarian, a former chief of Armenia’s National Security Council,
complains that Western countries are using the genocide issue to promote
their own agenda. "In the case of France, it is to keep Turkey out of the
EU," he says. The massacre of a million civilians is a matter in which Turks
should arrive at the truth on their own. But as Mr Gul has partly conceded,
that may necessitate an end to article 301’s restrictions on free speech.