External Pressure and Turkish Discourse on ‘Recognition of the Armenian Genocide’¹

[1] The article does not aim to develop or defend any historical or legal argument for or against the claim of genocide, nor does the specific use of related terms refer to a particular political or legal position.

Abstract

Turkey has faced increasing political pressure regarding the ‘recognition of the Armenian Genocide’, presented as an issue of ‘coming to terms with history’ and further democratisation. This article attempts to analyze the impact of external pressure for the ‘recognition of the Armenian Genocide’ in Turkey by examining the views of leading commentators, who represent different political standpoints. Among the commentators, opinions diverge to a great deal with regard to the ‘Armenian issue’, democratisation and European integration. Indeed, the only point that nearly all these intellectuals agree about is the uselessness of external pressure. Both in terms of the external pressure and internal responses, there is a clear instrumental use of the issue for other purposes. Although space for free discussion of the Armenian issue has expanded in Turkey, external interventions have fed reactionary nationalism, hindered dialogue between Turks and Armenians and limited developments in the democratisation process.

Acknowledgement

In respectful memory of Hrant Dink.

Notes

[1] The article does not aim to develop or defend any historical or legal argument for or against the claim of genocide, nor does the specific use of related terms refer to a particular political or legal position.

[2] On the website of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the ‘Armenian allegations’ are categorised as a leading foreign policy issue for Turkey: http://www.mfa.gov.tr/MFA/Foreign Policy/MainIssues/ArmenianAllegations/.

[3] For the text and discussions on the H. Res. 398 ‘The United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution’ proposal introduced in the House of Representatives on 18 November 1999, see the text of the Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on the International Relations House of Representatives: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi‐bin/getdoc.cgi?I Paddress=wais.access.gpo.gov&dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:69533.pdf

[4] For the text of H. RES. 106, ‘Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution’ proposal introduced in the House of Representatives on 30 January 2007: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi‐bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.106

[5] Morton Abramowitz, who is Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation and previously served as American Ambassador to Turkey, clearly stated that Turkey had lost the war of history on the Armenian issue in the eyes of the Americans and the only option left to stop any resolution is to emphasise the importance of American‐Turkish relations (Çongar 2007).

[6] For details of various legislative resolutions, laws and declerations, see http://www.armenian‐genocide.org/current_category.7/affirmation_list.html.

[7] European Parliament, Resolution on a Political Solution to the Armenian Question, Doc. A2‐33/87, 18 June 1987, Article 2. ‘The European Parliament believes that the tragic events of 1915–1917 involving the Armenians living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire constitute genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the prevention and the punishment of the crime of genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948. It recognises, however, that the present Turkey cannot be held responsible for the tragedy experienced by the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and stresses that neither political nor legal or material claims against present‐day Turkey can be derived from the recognition of this historical event as an act of genocide.’ Article 3 ‘calls on the Council to obtain from the present Turkish Government an acknowledgment of the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915–1917 and promotes the establishment of a political dialogue between Turkey and the representatives of the Armenians’.

[8] European Parliament, Resolution on the Opening of Negotiations with Turkey, RSP/2005/2576, 28 September 2005. Article 5 ‘calls on Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide, and considers this recognition to be a prerequisite for accession to the EU’.

[9] The original text of the Turkish Penal Code can be accessed via the Turkish Grand National Assembly website: http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/kanunlar/k5237.html.

[10] ‘Proposition de Loi tendant à réprimer la contestation de l'existence du génocide arménien’: http://www.assemblee‐nationale.fr/12/ta/ta0610.asp.

[11] ‘LOI no 2001‐70 du 29 janvier 2001 relative à la reconnaissance du génocide arménien de 1915’: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/Visu?cid=550080&indice=2&table=JORF&ligneDeb=1.

[12] ‘LOI no 90‐615 du 13 juillet 1990 tendant à réprimer tout acte raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe’, 13 July 1990: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=JUSX9010223L.

[13] Nicolas Sarkozy, ‘Mon Projet’: http://www.sarkozy.fr/lafrance/.

[14] The borders between these two countries were closed also because of the continuing Armenian occupation of parts of the internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan.

[15] Although the Radikal newspaper is generally described as liberal‐left and the majority of its contributors can be regarded so, it also has a wide variety of regular contributors, among whom some have strong rightist‐nationalist sentiments that could be seen as inconsistent with the newspaper's general editorial line.

[16] The Turkish‐Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) was a rare attempt to bring Turks and Armenians together with an American initiative for discussing opportunities for rapprochement as part of a two‐track diplomacy initiative between July 2001 and July 2004. Unfortunately, this effort did not open new channels of communication between the parties. Today, even the website of TARC (http://www.tarc.info) is defunct.

[17] The chants were ‘We are all Hrant Dinks’ and ‘We are all Armenians’. These messages were also carried on placards and dominated Hrant Dink's funeral cortege.