|
Dialogue with the Turks At What Price
The current initiative to promote mutual understanding between Turks and Armenians is a salutary undertaking, which no fair-minded individual would want to oppose. What is disconcerting from the Armenian perspective is the modality in which this dialogue has been pursued and its negative consequences for the Armenian national interest. One such consequence is the exacerbation of differences within the Armenian-American community, at the time when unity is so essential for Armenians, particularly in their advocacy efforts in Washington and helping Armenia to revive its economy. The Armenian members of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission not only have been
impervious to the divisions that their actions have caused in the Armenian community, but also intolerant toward their critics including those who have offered constructive criticism. They have simply claimed to have received support from "most Armenians." Surely this is an implausible assertion and a practical impossibility. In a similar vein, Commission member Van Krikorian's characterization that the Commission enjoys the support of the "mainstream members" of the community defies logic in the face of the opposition expressed by twenty-one Armenian-American organizations and the outpouring of grassroots criticism expressed in the Armenian print and electronic media. No single group or organization can claim to represent the "mainstream" in the Armenian community because of its pluralistic nature. The tragedy of it all is that with forbearance and a bit of forethought, it might have been possible to launch a broadly based initiative that would minimize dissent, while strengthening the Armenian position vis-à-vis our powerful adversary. Indeed, from a strictly diplomatic perspective, a major flaw of the present dialogue project is the asymmetry of power between the two sides. The Turkish contingent includes ranking ex-officials and diplomats and well-known academics who implicitly enjoy the backing of their government. By contrast, the Armenian members of the Commission are in a much weaker position; they neither have the strong support of the Diaspora nor that of the Armenian government. Unfortunately, the basic maxims of realism in international relations rarely work to the advantage of the weak. Consequently, one cannot be too hopeful about the future prospects of the Reconciliation Commission in its present configuration.
A prerequisite for any serious attempt at dialogue with the Turks is the
forging of a broad coalition of forces in the Diaspora and in Armenia. And
whatever happens to current or future initiatives toward Turkey, Armenian
advocacy organizations should not be detracted from such national
priorities as U.S. reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide and united
efforts to sustain the Armenian Republic. It is imperative that key
organizations such as the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian National
Committee continue their cooperative efforts to build upon their admirable
record of achievements to further the Armenian cause.
Armenian, Assyrian and Hellenic Genocide News Archives