In an interview to the daily Hürriyet, the author of the book Adil Hafızanın Işığında (In the Light of Fair Memory), Ambassador Altay Cengizer expressed his opinion of the centenary of the Armenian genocide in these words.
The ambassador’s book was in a way ground-breaking for the Turkish Foreign Service tradition. Although he suggested that his arguments should not be thought of as reflecting the official line of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Cengizer is the General Director of Political Planning at the ministry and diplomats on duty very rarely express their personal opinions. Therefore, considering the place the year 2015 occupies in the minds of Turkish policymakers, we can draw a number of conclusions from his book.
As a journalist sensitive to the events of 1915, the Hürriyet correspondent Cansu Çamlıbel visited Armenia as part of Hrant Dink Foundation’s Turkey-Armenia Journalists’ Dialogue Programme, which keeps a close watch on global developments concerning this issue. Çamlıbel is in close contact with diplomatic circles and her observations in this context are noteworthy: “In the challenging period which awaits us, it is not difficult to surmise that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will make use of this book for which Cengizer has spent years studying hundreds of documents.”
“The Armenian question” has always been a foreign policy war front for the Turkish Republic. In every country with Turkish representation, state officials have pursued a “policy of denial” regarding the events of 1915 in all platforms, whether social, cultural, artistic or political, and in every country. In line with the strategy it has set out for itself, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs carries out activities in Turkey and on the international arena via its overseas branches in collaboration with relevant individuals and institutions.
Except for one project initiated in 2009 in order to normalize Turkey-Armenia relations, there has been no significant deviation in the Turkish Republic’s hundred-year-old position towards Armenians. As these protocols were signed in 2009, for the first time the Turkish state had taken a step outside the axis of animosity based on the denial of the genocide. However, due to its dependence on foreign energy and internal nationalist discourses, Turkey eventually went back to its traditional policy, toeing the political line of energy-rich Azerbaijan, the ‘archenemy’ of Armenia.
Three main policies
Turkey can be said to have three main policies concerning the events of 1915. First, Turkey tries to influence foreign lawmakers, especially in the USA, through lobbying activities centered on denial, and utilizes its geopolitical importance to force foreign countries to block projects and legal initiatives regarding 2015 and the Armenian genocide. Secondly, through various channels, Turkey funds Western social scientists who produce custom-made studies that uphold Turkey’s position on the events of 1915. Finally, Turkey plans to emphasize the centenary of its “victory” in the Dardanelles War so as to shadow the centenary of the Armenian genocide and to diminish the importance of the April 24th commemoration in the public agenda.
Denials continue but with a new twist: “condolences”
After the signing of the said protocols between Armenia and Turkey in 2009, the only similar step was taken on April 23, 2014, a day before the 99th anniversary of the genocide. In a statement described as historical by many, the then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan offered his condolences. In his message on the 99th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, Erdoğan said “We wish that the Armenians who lost their lives in the context of the events of the early 20th century rest in peace, and we convey our condolences to their grandchildren.”
This message by Erdoğan, the person with the highest influence on the Turkish public agenda, made the Armenian genocide and its commemoration on April 24th the top item of the agenda, turning an issue of foreign affairs into a topic of debate in domestic politics.
I would like to share an anecdote in this context. It was the night of April 23, and we were about to send the weekly newspaper Agos to press. We were holding a meeting to decide on the newspaper’s headline, yet we felt gloomy due to the media’s lack of attention towards the “genocide commemoration.” Our colleagues working at other newspapers and televisions had lost their interest in next day’s commemoration in Taksim Square, and the media was largely silent on the issue. So, no one expected this declaration by Erdoğan. Following his declaration, which would be remembered as a “message of condolence,” the issue remained on the agenda for weeks and our phones never stopped ringing. Erdoğan’s message, issued in nine languages including Western and Eastern Armenian, pointed to a new situation, although it was still one of denial. I would like to share a passage from our article entitled “May this condolence be a start, not the end,” which was penned after the said meeting at the Agos office:
“Not accepting the condolence offered for our deceased loved ones would go against our shared values. We accept these condolences with our right hand, and place it on our heart - with joy, but also much grief… Yet our words do not stop there. There are shortcomings, and points which we want to highlight or criticize. We would like these to be taken into account.
In Turkey, coming to terms with the past cannot be achieved through tactical moves motivated by national interests, but rather through earnest, well-planned steps with significant content.
If such a change does not come, the condolence will remain only a condolence, that is, an end… However, the condolence can also pave the ground for a true confrontation with the past in this land, for a true peace among the peoples. It is enough to truly want it.”
As a new message albeit a denialist one, this offering of condolence by Erdoğan and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a combination of a partial improvement on the previous state discourse on the Armenian question with other tactical concerns. Although it comes from a naïve and optimistic approach, this may look like “the first step in a long process which will lead to the recognition of the Armenian genocide.” From a more realistic perspective, it resembles a tactical move to partially relieve Ankara of the increasing pressure developing in the centenary of the genocide. Nonetheless, what is said cannot be taken back, and the Turkish state discourse cannot go back to what it was before the message of condolence.
A holistic strategy
On the other hand there is a question growing in the minds of the Armenian diaspora, Armenians of Armenia and certain circles in Turkey: What will happen in 2015, the centenary of the Armenian genocide, which will also witness general elections with huge importance for AKP, the ruling Justice and Development Party? How will this issue affect the political atmosphere and what will be the consequences? Another question concerns the position of the main opposition party CHP, the Republican People’s Party.
Although the President Erdoğan is sure to deliver election speeches to huge crowds as if he were the prime minister and take his place in the propaganda scene, one needs to look at the discourse of Prime Minister Davutoğlu who will officially lead AKP in the run-up to the elections in order to understand how the Armenian genocide will affect the political atmosphere.
In the aftermath of the message of condolence, Davutoğlu said, “We hope that the hand we extend receives a response. Turkey does not make such declarations under pressure, and this is not a tactical declaration on our part.” In response to a parliamentary question by the independent Istanbul MP İhsan Barutçu, he elaborated his position as follows: “The fight against Armenian claims about the events of 1915 necessitates a holistic strategy which will extend to diplomatic and legal fields, public diplomacy and academic studies, and the Turkish diaspora overseas. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s message dated April 23 is a part of this strategy.”
The aftermath of the condolence continued with the resignation of Metin Hülagü, the president of the Turkish Historical Society (TTK). It is the production center of the official historical discourse, and there is a search for “international academics who will uphold the new approach.”
A few examples about the “holistic strategy” that Prime Minister Davutoğlu speaks of can give us an idea as to what we will encounter in the run-up to the elections and the centenary of the genocide. The conflicting and zigzag nature of steps taken in and outside Ankara naturally urges us to question the scope and impact of the condolences. As long as the overseas policy deploys every method to strengthen denialism and rejection, the other steps taken in this regard will inevitably appear as pragmatic moves.
Using the Dardanelles Campaign to change the agenda
In this respect, let us give two examples from Switzerland and Australia. It was revealed that, in Switzerland in 2008, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs negotiated and exerted pressure in order to postpone the installation of the art project entitled The Streetlights of Memory next to the United Nations Geneva Centre in memory of the victims of the Armenian genocide with the support of the Geneva City Council. To hinder the project, Turkey used the G-20 Summit to be held in 2015 in Antalya as a carrot because Switzerland wants to take part in it.
In a second example, Australia Turkey Defense Union (ATA-A) penned a protest letter to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs in reaction to the New South Wales Parliament’s decision to recognize the Armenian genocide. In response, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop said that the country did not view the Armenian question as a case of “genocide,” a position in line with its general foreign policy. Ankara’s interest towards Australia is not limited to blocking a possible law recognizing the Armenian genocide, however. The Turkish government has frequently stated that “For us, 1915 stands for the Dardanelles War” and it uses the pretext of the Dardanelles War to diminish the importance of the Armenian genocide on the agenda. 2015 has been declared the “Year of Australia” in Turkey and “Year of Turkey” in Australia. The Gallipoli Campaign is seen as a key event in shaping the Australian identity. The Dardanelles are naturally a “sacred” place for Australians since many Anzac soldiers lost their lives in that tragic war. Unfortunately, the Australian government does not criticize Turkey for fear of retaliation. According to the Turkish media, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has declared that those Australians linked to the abovementioned law will not be allowed to the town of Çanakkale.
We can also add to the picture the AKP’s resistance to the restitution of the real estate known as Sansaryan Han to its true owners. The court’s rejection of the return of this building to the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey seems to be politically rather than legally motivated, considering that Erdoğan gave a negative response in a meeting held just before offering condolences. This rejection is very important, since a return would have initiated similar procedures concerning other unlawfully seized real estate belonging to the foundations of ethnic minorities.
As such, in view of these developments, it can be said that the impact of the centenary of the genocide on the Turkish political arena will remain limited to a message of condolence, which remains a cosmetic gesture whose sincerity is questionable, designed only to strengthen Turkey’s hand in the international arena. However, it needs to be noted that the condolence message was nevertheless a surprise move.
When I asked him his opinion on the matter, the journalist Yetvart Danzikyan said the following:
The fact that the centenary of the genocide coincides with elections of great importance to AKP creates a huge question mark. The elections are scheduled to be held in June, unless they are called earlier. On the other hand, last year’s condolence message has created certain expectations, even though it sparked controversy. It might be expected that the AKP will not lower the bar, not in the centenary at least, but this is merely a presumption. Indeed, the AKP is a rather flexible party, just like its constituency. The AKP electorate, which—in the context of the Kurdish question—welcomes a decision of war and a decision of peace in much the same way, will likewise give a similar reaction to a dovish and a hawkish policy on 1915, I guess. What counts is what the AKP leaders are planning for 2015. Neither of two diametrically opposite declarations would come as a surprise to me.
Business as usual at CHP and MHP
How about the other actors in the political arena? The President of MHP (Nationalist Action Party) Devlet Bahçeli, reacted to Erdoğan’s condolences for 1915 with the statement, “There are no words to describe this; the [Turkish] nation has suffered enough already.”
The CHP, on the other hand, gave its support to Erdoğan. CHP’s Vice President Faruk Loğoğlu stated that the most noteworthy expression in Erdoğan’s statement was the word “condolence” and added that “This is a sacred, respectable concept shared by all religions. There is nothing objectionable here. No need to feel offended. But what are the circumstances and occasions which led to this condolence? Why after such delay; why does a prime minister in power for so many years choose the year 2014? We need to question this…”
When discussing the discourses of political parties and how the centenary can impact the politics and elections, the constituencies of the parties naturally need to be taken into consideration. In the final instance, the parties follow policies approved by their constituencies or policies designed to extend their constituency. Nevertheless, interestingly enough, there is no satisfactory public survey or academic research on the Armenian question. Although not adequate, the Public Survey on the Armenian Question issued by EDAM (Center for Economics and Foreign Policy) in late December is helpful. According to this research, a large portion of the public supports the official political line embodied by Erdoğan’s “message of condolence” of April 23, 2014.
In the survey, carried out from November 7 until December 7 2014, 1,508 respondents deemed to represent the Turkish electorate were asked which state policy they support in the context of the Armenian genocide. According to the results, 24% consider that those killed in 1915 were not only Armenians and that sorrow must be expressed for all the deceased, while 12% think that sorrow and not an apology should be expressed for the Armenians killed in 1915.
Nine percent think that the “claims of genocide” should be accepted. Another nine percent state that Turkey should take steps towards making an apology, without accepting the claims of genocide. In other words, a total of 18% of participants think that Turkey should apologize to Armenians for 1915.
Twenty-one percent of the respondents think that Turkey should not take any step regarding the “alleged Armenian genocide.” Another noteworthy result is that 25% of participants refused to answer this particular question at all.
One important issue is the division among the CHP electorate over this question. The CHP constituency does not think that “claims of genocide” should be accepted; however, has a more favorable stance than other parties’ supporters towards an apology. Twenty percent of all CHP electors think that “no step should be taken,” followed by a group of 17% who consider that sorrow should be expressed for all the losses of the era.
Although it harbors diverse tendencies, the CHP follows a rather nationalist line on the issue of the Armenian genocide. Here is what Ayşen Uysal, a faculty member at Dokuz Eylül University Department of Political Science known for her work on the CHP, thinks in this regard:
Although a few dissident voices are heard in the CHP, the party as a whole is not close to recognizing the genocide. In fact, even apologies offered on different questions immediately remind CHP members of the Armenian genocide. For instance, Vice President Sezgin Tanrıkulu offered his apologies for the Dersim Massacre on a TV program. Although this declaration did not bind the party and was probably meant to test the reactions of the party apparatus and electorate, the battle lines were drawn immediately and the issue was linked to the Armenian genocide debate. As you remember, after Tanrıkulu said these words, the party’s nationalist wing went on a rampage and insulted him.
The CHP’s most concrete suggestion regarding the Armenian genocide is “The establishment of a joint historical commission and the initiation of a dialogue between parties based on documented facts.” They also propose that all archives should be opened and a “dialogue group” should be set up. The party’s suggestions do not, or rather cannot, go further than that. When the issue is brought up, the President Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu says “Let us leave historians to decide whether it was a genocide or not.” Clearly, this is an expression meant to avoid a serious discussion of the issue.
Ayşen Uysal thinks that the CHP should not be expected to take a favorable initiate in 2015. When I asked her, “Will the upcoming elections have an effect on the CHP’s stance on the Armenian genocide?” her response was as follows:
I don’t think that it will. On the one hand, the leaders are afraid of reactions from their nationalist base. It is very difficult for CHP to take a step forward in the Armenian, Kurdish or Dersim questions unless it radically changes its political composition. At most, they might test the waters with declarations by one or two MPs and then immediately step back. Furthermore, CHP members outside the nationalist wing also know little on the issue and their perspective is based on stereotypes; as such, they have similar opinions on the Armenian genocide. Given this picture, the CHP should not be expected to go beyond a few shy remarks even though it is the year 2015. They will continue to delegate the question to historians, to future generations. That is, their lack of policy on the Armenian genocide seems set to remain unchanged.”