SHIFTING THE BLAME

Armenians all over the world waited with great trepidation to see if the US president would this year use the sacred word "genocide" in his address to the Armenian community in connection with the anniversary of the events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire. Especially, as the US ambassador in Yerevan promised, on this occasion the text of the address "would be special". But the Armenians did not, in fact, hear this much-coveted word. Instead, the Armenian president had to listen personally, from the mouth of the Azerbaijani leader, and in the presence of high-ranking participants in the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague, the position of the Turkish and Azerbaijani sides - which he is unhappy about - regarding under what circumstances Armenia might expect the opening of the border with Turkey.

Gareth Jenkins, an expert on this subject at America's Johns Hopkins University, shared with R+ his opinion about these latest events concerning Armenia's relations with its eastern and western neighbours.

- You are well known in the west as an expert on Turkey. This year the US president, when he addressed the Armenian people on 24 April, did not use the word "genocide". Could anything change in a year's time when the Armenian community marks the centenary of the "genocide"?

- I think there will certainly be a lot more pressure for Obama to include the word genocide in his statement in 2015. But I am not sure whether he will or not. During his election campaign in 2008 Obama said that he had no doubt that what happened in 1915-16 was a genocide and promised to recognize the genocide when he became president. He has been president for six years and he still hasn't kept his promise. I doubt that there has been a change in his personal opinion in that time. It is just that he doesn't want to upset Turkey. The bad news for Turkey is that there will be so much pressure on the 100th anniversary. The good news for Turkey is that Obama cannot stand for a third term. So he doesn't need to worry about losing Armenian American votes if he fails to keep his promise for a seventh year in a row.

- The leaders of the US and the European Union have welcomed the condolences that were expressed publicly for the first time by the Turkish prime minister in connection with the events of 1915, but this didn't satisfy the Armenians either?

- Erdogan's statement was the most conciliatory ever issued by a Turkish Prime Minister but he stopped short of describing what happened as a genocide, which is what angered many Armenians. I think one of the main reasons for Erdogan's statement was that the Young Turk regime was in power in 1915. Erdogan is ideologically opposed both to the Young Turk regime and to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, whose regime grew out of the Young Turk period. So Erdogan finds it easier to express his condolences for things that happened under the Young Turks or under Ataturk than he does for things that happened before the Young Turks took power.

I think many Armenians were also angered by Erdogan's reference to the suffering of Muslims in World War I because they thought he was trying to equate the two as if they somehow cancelled each other out.

From one perspective, I think they have a point as the suffering of the Muslims of Anatolia during World War I occurred for very different reasons from the suffering of Armenians. But I also think that not enough attention is paid to the suffering of Muslims in the late Ottoman Empire. There was massive ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Balkans and the Caucasus during the 19th and early 20th century, including massacres and expulsions of huge numbers of people. I don't think one atrocity can ever justify another. Morality is not a question of arithmetic. Innocent people do not become more dead when they are numbered in millions rather than hundreds of thousands. 

I think Erdogan would have been on firmer historical and moral grounds if he had not tried to excuse what happened to the Armenians by saying that millions of Muslims also died during World War I but had expressed his sadness without any reservation. He could then have separately called on the non-Muslim states in the Balkans and Caucasus to acknowledge what happened to Muslim communities during the process of independence from the Ottomans.

- How would you describe the fact that the Azerbaijani leader stuck up for Turkey when he was attacked by the Armenian president at the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague?

- I think this is another indication of the strength of the Turkish-Azerbaijan relationship at the moment. Over the last few years, it has been one of the very few areas of Turkish foreign relations where there has been an improvement.

- What do you think about a link between Turkish-Armenian relations and the process of a settlement to the conflict around Nagornyy Karabakh?

- I would hope that Washington does not try to link what happened in 1915-16 with Nagornyy Karabakh. They are two completely separate issues that occurred a long time apart. Nagornyy Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan not Turkey. The reason that Turkey imposed sanctions on Armenia - such as closing the border - was out of solidarity with Azerbaijan after Nagornyy Karabakh was occupied. Once Turkey did that, any rapprochement with Armenia - such as reopening the border or establishing full diplomatic ties with Yerevan - without a resolution of the Nagornyy Karabakh issue would be a slap in the face for Azerbaijan. I would be very surprised if Ankara did it. I think it would also damage Turkey's credibility.

 The basic problem is not a rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. It is Nagornyy Karabakh. If that can be resolved then a rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia will follow.

- And meanwhile, as has already been mentioned earlier, Azerbaijan and Turkey are working closely together on these two issues.

- Given the cultural ties and the current strength of political and economic relations, I don't think the cooperation is a surprise. But, without belittling what happened in 1915-16, I think that resolving Nagornyy Karabakh is more urgent. To put it bluntly, those who died nearly 100 years ago, cannot be brought back, their deaths cannot be undone. But there is a risk that, if the issue of Nagornyy Karabakh is not resolved, more people will die. As a result, I think that collaboration in trying to resolve Nagornyy Karabakh is more important.