I have realised that the quickest way to start my blood boiling is to read small-minded, one-sided arguments about Turkey's past human right's abuses. Excuse me, I mean the Ottoman Empire's human rights abuses. Let me give you some context.
In Monday's NYT, Roger Cohen wrote a well-put op-ed about Turkey's foreign policy. Naturally I was going to post a link to it when I finally got out from the pile of reading that I let build up. Regardless, we were assigned to read it for my Turkish foreign policy class, along with the reader's comments. I scan over the article, to refresh my memory on the topic and move on to the reader's comments. Much to my chagrin, the first one is basically ripping Turkey a new one for the Armenian Issue (or Genocide, however you prefer to call it) of 1918. This is my open letter to you, JG, Caesarea @ blogspot:
Dear JG, or since you're so keen on first names, maybe we can just go with J--
Dear J,
First of all, you seem really adamant that the "slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians" be recognised and condemned as genocide. You touch briefly on the fact that it happened nearly a century ago, and move quickly some more recent human rights abuses. Let's go back to that for just a second. I just want to make sure you realise that this happened back when a good chunk of the Middle East was still under the control of Ottoman sultans. The last time I checked, that government doesn't exist anymore. Shall we hold President Obama responsible for racial segregation, or even for the slaughter of Native American tribes while colonists and early Americans settled the North American continent.
Yes, it is possible for administrations to apologise for the mistakes of previous administrations. But in this case, an apology is an expensive gift. Not just in terms of national pride, but an apology and recognition of the acts as genocide also require Turkey to pay reparations to Armenia (which defeats the purpose, since it was the Armenian diaspora who was affected during the first world war anyway). Turkish-Armenian relations have been tense since Turkey closed its borders to Armenia following its own genocide-like human rights abuses in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. And if the US condemns the tragedy as a genocide, it risks completely alienating a geographically strategic ally. See, things aren't always so black and white. I'm personally a fan that this decision should be left to historians, not politicians.
Secondly, you mention the ethnic conflict with the Kurds in southeastern Turkey. You make it sound like carving up a part of your sovereign territory for another ethnic minority is an easy thing to do. Look at how Israel is dealing with that problem. Look at how the Union reacted with the South tried to secede.
You seem to derive more of a problem with the fact that Cohen ignores human rights abuses in his praise of Turkey's foreign policy, and that it's more keen to engage with fellow human rights abusers. I'd like to ask you how you think human rights factors into foreign policy decisions? The middle east is a treacherous region, and Turkey is becoming more economically and regionally responsible by engaging their neighbors, despite those neighbors' own actions, rather than ignoring them. Turkey's biggest competitor for being the regional powerhouse is Iran. Can you imagine a middle east controlled by Iran?
What makes Turkey qualified for this role is not its own human rights record, nor with whom it might choose to economically engage (in its own defence, trading with Syria and Iran makes geographical sense, I would be more apt to question its motives if it were suddenly keen on increasing trade with Zimbabwe), but the fact that the West is actually able to trust it. Especially moreso than Iran. I dare you to find any country with a completely clean human rights record.
Cordially,
Denise
No comments:
Post a Comment