VOICES OF CAUTION FROM HISTORIC PAST
By Edmond Y. Azadian
AZG Armenian Daily
11/10/2008
Armenia-Turkey
Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s visit to Armenia and the forthcoming
visit of President Serge Sargisian have triggered euphoria on both
sides of the border, more on the Turkish side than the Armenian.
It is as if the floodgates have been let loose in the Turkish press
to give historic significance to this turn of events.
By blockading Armenia and refusing to establish diplomatic relations,
Ankara’s intention was to bring Armenia to its knees. Although
that prospect never materialized, a resentment was built up in the
subconsciousness of the Armenia’s populace that all the hardships they
had been experiencing came because of the Karabagh conflict. Armenia
had won its first monumental victory in a thousand years and had
liberated a historic piece of her ancestral homeland, but it was never
able to digest its victory. Eventually, however, her tenacity paid off.
The lifting of the blockade by Turkey and the establishment of
diplomatic relations were conditioned by Ankara by certain compromises
which Armenia had to make: official recognition of Turkish Armenian
border (defined by The Treaty of Kars, 1923), renunciation of Genocide
claims and the return of captured territories to Azerbaijan, including
Nagorno Karabagh.
Ankara did not budge on these issues, knowing full well that they
were non-starters.
Turkey was very confident and comfortable, and it was left to Armenia
to make the first move.
Meanwhile, the Genocide issue was kept on the agenda of Yerevan’s
foreign policy, while Karabagh’s de facto independence was considered
a fait accompli.
But Russia’s resurgent assertiveness and its war against Georgia
shattered the entire set up of the Caucasus’ political landscape.
As was revealed in Paul Goble’s insightful analysis, Russia had more
influence on Turkey than previously assumed by pundits. Moscow’s
tit-for-tat policy of recognizing Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s
independence versus Kosovo placed under revision the entire map of
the Caucasus region. Armenia, being Russia’s closest ally, suddenly
gained prominence. Turkey moved in with its proposal for a Caucasus
peace and stability pact which could not be achieved without Armenia’s
participation.
Turkey’s move also intended to contain Iran in the region to please
the West and to corner a historic adversary since the Ottoman period.
Suddenly Turkey needed Armenia more than Armenia needed Turkey.
We cannot assume that Turkey’s preconditions are already shelved, but
they became negotiable. Eventually, Turkey had to come to terms with
Armenia to see any movement in its prospects to join the European
Union.
At this point, if nothing comes out of these developments the Turkish
public opinion will experience a crash course in history. The Turkish
media is exuberant with the turn of events and the Genocide issue
is once again on the forefront, despite Article 301 of Turkey’s
penal code.
In the past, an individual writer, namely Kemal Yalcin had dared to
apologize for the Genocide. Now we see prominent scholar and political
commentator Baskin Oran has come up with the suggestion that Turkey
must make amends for the pain it inflicted on the Armenians, and cease
espousing the cause of Ittihad and Terraki criminals. This chain of
apologies has extended all the way to the diplomats and statesmen who
have a say in Turkey’s foreign policy, like Tansu Ciller’s political
advisor, Vulkan Voural.
Fortunately, the Armenian media is more subdued, cautious and
analytical. We do not see the ecstasy that is witnessed on the Turkish
side of the border.
It was only a short while ago that Prime Minister Erdogan had
joined Azeri President Ilham Aliyev and Georgian President Mikhail
Saakashvilli to inaugurate the rail system, which intended to isolate
Armenia.
Turkey’s moves are not motivated by goodness of heart. They reflect
cold political calculations.
Already, the first president of the Third Republic and opposition
leader Levon Ter-Petrosian has cautioned that Turkey intends to pit
the diaspora against Armenia. Indeed, that is a recurring theme in
the Turkish media and Ankara’s political circles. The argument by
the Turks is that Armenia’s distressed population is concerned with
bread-and-butter issues and is eager to improve relations with Turkey,
while Diaspora Armenians, who have settled comfortably in affluent
Western societies, are fanning the flames of the Genocide issue.
Of course, there is some truth in that but not the whole truth,
because, the Diaspora Armenians are the survivors and descendents
of survivors of the Genocide. Except for Vaspouragan and Kars area
Armenians who fled to the Caucasus, the population of the present
day Armenia lived under the Tsarist rule and they were spared the
Ottoman Turkish genocidal policies. Also, for 70 years, the Soviet
authorities, in deference to the Turks, repressed any reference
to the Genocide. Finally, when the time comes for a settlement,
Armenia is the legal entity to negotiate the terms, always taking
into consideration the Diaspora concerns.
Historic precedents need to caution us against Turkish goodwill. Of
course, we need to improve relations with Turkey and resolve
long-standing problems. But with a realistic approach based on history.
My mother was from Adana in Cilicia and had a revealing story about
Turks; a blind Turkish beggar at the gate of the Armenian Church
survived through the charity dispensed by Armenian parishioners. The
beggar blessed the Armenians every time alms were placed in his
palm. Come the Adana massacres of 1909, the beggar was pleading his
fellow Turks to drop an Armenian in his lap so that he could deserve
the heavens by slitting the throat of his victim.
Of course, our legendary hero and military genius General Antranik
was more experienced than my mother. He never trusted Turks and for
that reason he resigned from the Dashnag party when the latter cozied
up to the Turks.
In 1895, Sultan Abdulhamid organized widescale massacres, murdering
some 300,000 Armenians. Armenagan party members in Van took up arms
when they found out the atrocities were closing in on their town
and they stopped the overwhelming Ottoman Army. The British consul
negotiated a truce and the Armenians were promised safe passage to
Iran. After they were disarmed, they were ambushed on their way and
800 freedom fighters were murdered.
In 1908, the Ittihadists brought about a revolution and adopted a
constitution. Armenian political parties gave up their arms and they
declared, "we are all Ottomans." A year later, 30,000 Armenians were
massacred in Adana. Armenians were not awakened and they were lulled
into believing that Turks had changed. Krikor Zohrab, a member of
the Ottoman Parliament was a close friend of Talaat, the mastermind
of the Armenian Genocide. One evening Talaat treated his good friend
Zohrab to dinner, only to arrest him the next morning and eventually
to have his skull crushed with a rock on his way to exile.
Armenian volunteers joined the Allies during World War I, and in the
aftermath of the war, they returned to Cilicia victoriously. Many
Turks joined Armenians to live peacefully in Cilicia. Some even
converted to Christianity, only to turn their guns against Armenians
when the Kemalist hordes invaded Cilicia, after shameful betrayal of
the French army.
The historic precedents are too numerous to cite.
This rare opportunity cannot be missed. Yet, we should not
underestimate the shrewdness of Turkish diplomacy. After all, they
ruled a huge empire for more than six centuries. They make their
political moves with cold-blooded calculation. We need to respond in
kind, something which we have failed to do in our history.