Two developments on Armenian-Turkish issues spilled a lot of ink last week. Neither one was significant, but assumed significance because of extensive international media coverage.
On April 22, exactly a year after the release of the roadmap, ostensibly to normalize Armenia-Turkey relations, and six months after the infamous protocols were signed by the two countries with great fanfare, President Serge Sarkisian announced their suspension.
There was actually nothing new in this announcement. It has been crystal clear for months that Turkey’s leaders never intended to ratify the protocols. They simply wanted to exploit them in order to extract further concessions from Armenia. The Turks repeatedly announced that unless Armenia turned over Karabagh (Artsakh) to Azerbaijan, the Turkish Parliament would not ratify the protocols. As time went by, Turkey added more inane demands, such as the reversal of the Armenian Constitutional Court’s decision and the withdrawal of genocide resolutions from parliaments of other countries. Since Armenia had repeatedly announced that it would not be the first to ratify the protocols, the accords were already frozen for months, if not stillborn.
Even though some may view Sarkisian’s decision as a bold move, it would have been far more preferable for him to withdraw his country’s signature from the protocols since they’ve been dead in the water anyway. He could have easily blamed their collapse on Turkey’s intransigence. He acknowledged in his last week’s public announcement that he decided to suspend the protocols after Russia, France, and the United States asked him not to abandon them completely.
Now that Armenia has blinked first, Turkey is blaming it for causing the collapse of the protocols. Armenia has thus helped Turkey to wiggle its way out of the intense international pressure it was subjected to in recent months for its failure to ratify them.
Moreover, as long as the protocols are not completely discarded, Turkey will continue to exploit them by cleverly claiming that it is still committed to their ratification under the “right” conditions, and will use them as a viable tool to defeat all initiatives by third countries on the Armenian Genocide.
Regrettably, Turkey is not the only country exploiting the protocols. President Obama, after pressuring Armenia not to reject the protocols, dodged the term “Armenian Genocide” once again in his annual statement. He used as an excuse the non-existent “dialogue among Turks and Armenians.”
Just as he had done last year, Obama substituted the term “Meds Yeghern” (Great Calamity, in Armenian) for the Armenian Genocide and used the same worn-out euphemisms and shameful word games for which, as a Senator and presidential candidate, he had condemned President George W. Bush.
The overwhelming majority of Armenian Americans who had supported Obama’s candidacy and trusted him, now feel disillusioned and deceived. He ran his campaign on the promise of change, only to adopt the same immoral position of his predecessors—even though he keeps saying that he has not changed his mind regarding his pledge to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.
In a column I wrote last year after Obama first broke his campaign promise on the Armenian Genocide, I stated that Armenian Americans do not need to beg him to acknowledge the genocide. Thirty years ago, President Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation referring to the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, Armenian Americans see no special advantage in a repeat statement by Obama. By not keeping his word, however, Obama has succeeded in undermining his own reputation and credibility with the American people and world public opinion.
It is simply mind-boggling that the president of the United States would go out of his way to issue a statement that alienates the very people he is trying to accommodate.
Just imagine the outcry had Obama referred to the Holocaust as simply a massacre or a tragic event. Yet, this is exactly what he has done on the Armenian Genocide by using a series of euphemisms in his April 24 statement: “Dark past,” “Dark moment in history,” “painful history,” “awful events of 1915,” “ a devastating chapter,” “one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century,” “murder,” and “terrible events.” Obama’s aides could have spent their time more usefully by reading a history book rather than a thesaurus.
The only new idea in Obama’s April 24, 2010 statement is the following brief sentence: “I salute the Turks who saved Armenians in 1915.” This is a commendable notion that unfortunately becomes devoid of any meaning in the absence of exactly who or what these Armenians were saved from.
We all hope that the solemn commemorations next April 24 are not tarnished either by the protocols (frozen or thawed) or by Obama’s offensive statement!
Harut Sassounian
The calamity is to translate “yeghern” as “calamity” in the term “Medz Yeghern”. It emphatically means “Great Crime” in Armenian, an intentional violation of the universal moral code. Call it Great Atrocity, if you want. But why this “calamity, catastrophe, tragedy”? Why can’t we preserve the dignified precision of the Armenian language? Why muddy the waters and help the denialists? Incredible.
I also found the line about Turks saving Armenian lives interesting but for a different reason. President Obama salutes the “Turks” for saving Armenians in 1915, but when it comes to the crimes committed against the Armenians, the emphasis is placed on the “Ottomans”.
“By not keeping his word, however, Obama has succeeded in undermining his own reputation and credibility with the American people and world public opinion.”
1. “Reputation”
I believe it depends on the individuals opinion of Obama’s reputation.
I for one have VERY low esteem of Obama’s reputation.
2. “Credibility”
Again, I for one do not believe Obama has much credibility based on his performance to date.
3. Do you really believe the,”American people and world public opinion” are aware of Obama’s recent actions regarding the Armenian Genocide ?
An American of Armenian Decent
DEAR MR SASSOUNIAN THANK YOU, AS ALWAYS YOUR ANA LYSIS REGARDING PROTOCOLS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALIENATED STATEMENT WAS COMPREHENSIVE… ARMENIAN COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE…
IN ADDITION TO SWIDLING TURKS POLICY THAT ALL WE ARE AWARE THERE IS QUESTIONS ? A- DO ARMENIAN PRESIDENT MR. SARGSYAN AND OTHER ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES EVER READ THIS KIND ANALYSIS ?
B- DO PRESIDENT OBAMA CARES MORE ABOUT HIS ELECTION AND VOTES THAN AMERICAN VALUES AND COMMON HUMANITY??
DEAR MR SASSOUNIAN THANK YOU, AS ALWAYS YOUR ANA LYSIS REGARDING PROTOCOLS AND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ALIENATED STATEMENT WAS COMPREHENSIVE… ARMENIAN COULDN’T AGREE WITH YOU MORE…
IN ADDITION TO SWINDLING TURKS POLICY THAT OF COURSE WE ALL ARE AWARE THERE IS QUESTIONS ? A- DO ARMENIAN PRESIDENT MR. SARGSYAN AND OTHER ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES EVER READ THIS KIND ANALYSIS ?
B- DO PRESIDENT OBAMA CARES MORE ABOUT HIS ELECTION AND VOTES THAN AMERICAN VALUES AND COMMON HUMANITY (IN OUR CASE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE)??
UNFORTUNATELY WE WASTE OUR NATIONS TIME FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR BECAUSE OF WRONG POLICY…
DISAPPOINTED DR. BABAJANIAN AND FAMILY
Is Serge Sarkisian working for Russia, France and United States or for his people, may be for his oligarchs benefits only. Please Mr Sassounian ask him, why he ignore, while whole world of Armenians are against the protocols,and still he plays games.
Second, from now on we must send a message publicly to Obama, we don’t give a damn if he use genocide word or not on April 24, we Armenians don’t need his comments any more.
Let Us praise those who helped and still helping Us,
And neglect those who intentionally
Try to forgot Us.
Dear Sassounian
After reading your Hearty Article many times,
I think President Barak is cheating the Turks not us.
If his 44 out of 50 American states recognized the genocide,
Can you convince that the rest 6 states will stay silent!
Even a seven old child who knows simple math will tell you ,
“The Armenians are winners.”
AMEN Sylva jan… :)
Yes WE ARE THE WINNERS… whether or not Obama kam el ira shun Clinton say the word or not..
I wonder how Obama is going to convince the Armenian Americans to vote for him for his next reelection.. HA.. I have already crossed his name and Clinton’s from my memory.. Who is Obama??? Who is Clinton??? Two bought out individuals who swallowed their conscious for piece of politics…
Gayane
Hye, it should be noted… A Turkey, over the years, has many, many unsigned ‘agreements’ – awaiting to be ‘agreed/signed’. It should be known, especially, by the US State Department, that Turkish policy is for all and any agreements to be ‘agreed’ to – but not signed – or still unsigned/’unagreed’ – waiting to be signed. Consider, this amongst the first of the many PLOYS the Turks uses – into today – hence the Turks have come to believe they are clever… not signing what they have agreed to sign (or changing the rules of the ‘agreements’ after signing)… their ‘mode’of diplomacy. Too, this action/inaction has caused the all efforts to end the cycle of Genocides (since the early 20th century) to be delayed, distracted, demeaned – unto today – 2010 in Darfur. Genocides still in Darfur as today t00, since Sudanese ‘deny’ committing their Genocide of Darufurians – ala a Turkey. With such Ottoman mentality still pursued, when shall the end of the cycle of ALL Genocides become a reality? Manooshag
The unsavory thing is that Obama backtracks on a promise. In this he does the same thing as a number of US earlier administrations: promising to ask Turkey to recognise the genocide and then backpedalling in the name of US interests. To brazenly subordinate a moral issue to national interests is not only despicable, it is dangerous because it strengthens a all too familiar tendency to regard raisons d’etat as being above etnics.
On the other hand I welcome the name “Medz Yeghern” as a signal that the crimes of the Young Turks and the resulting Armenian catastrophy of 1915 must not necessarily exclusively be expressed as a moral concern by the expression ”genocide”.
This is not primarily because I believe that the actual documentation for the thesis of the applicability of the term genocide – in the strict juridical sense – to the events of 1915-16 is open to doubt, but because a number of factors today tends to make the campaign for genocide recognition an inadequate strategy, or at worst a kind of blind alley.
Factor one: Ten years ago the attitude in most countries was that the Turks lied about the events and that failure on the part of the parliaments of the world to ask Turkey to recognise the genocide was a clear moral failure. Today other voices are heard that cannot easily be brushed off as denialism or support of denialism. Many insist that parliaments cannot legislate on historical truths. Historical truths are established by concensus aming historians.
Factor two: Ten years ago it was almost universally believed in the enlightened public that relevant historians adhered to the genocide thesis regarding 1915 in the same way as they adhere to the genocide thesis regarding the Holocaust: only the bad or the mad deny or doubt. Today there is a much more pervasive feeling that we do not know all about the facts. There is much more recognition of the fact that a not negligible number of historians – who cannot be brushed off as cranks – doubt or deny.
Factor three: In the light of the preceding points the natural answer for those who uphold the genocide thesis would be to rely more on scholarly argumentation. But he tendency to dismiss those who disagree as cranks or worse, and to refuse to argue with them, continues. The weakness of this strategy is apparent, most conspicuously when the Turks played the Habermassian card: Let the the most knowledgable of us sit down together and discuss the matter, and let the best argument win! We will bow to the consequences! Both the US administration, The UN and the EU applauded this. But he other side chose to see the invitation to dialogue onesidedly as an insistence that they must question their own convictions rather than as an opportunity to win by the best arguments! Understandable in view of the Armenain wounds, questionable as strategy.
The Germans passed a resolution in 2005 which unequivocally asked the Turks to go into the dark spots of their history regarding the fate of the Ottoman Armenians. The guilt of the Young Turks is also clearly stated. But he word genocide was not used. But will ANCA and other campaigners regard this as a victory or a defeat for the Armenian cause?