According to the dictates of pragmatism, one couldn’t have reasonably expected President Obama to drop the g-word — referencing the genocide of the Armenians in World War I, which Turkey has persistently refused to label as such — while speaking in Turkey, his campaign promise to do so notwithstanding. And, in fact, the portion of Obama’s speech in Turkey addressing the issue, while perhaps evasive, did address the matter in a commonsensically productive manner.
While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.
Whether or not the President of the United States of America says the word genocide is indeed a political calculation. The politicization of this usage of a single word stems partially from U.S. domestic politics (which is why it will be much more interesting to see if and how Obama pivots when he makes the president’s traditional statement to Armenian-Americans in a couple weeks) and partially from the heavy, almost all-consuming significance that the word has acquired (and which, four and a half years after President Bush declared Darfur a “genocide,” to much fanfare and little action, is clearly not productive). And in this sense, what matters more is that Turkey and Armenia deal with this issue, and with their own relations with one another. The opening of the closed Armenian-Turkish border is no small accomplishment, and, though it may appear to be simply this year’s entry in the annual casuistry explaining the particularly inopportune timing of a genocide resolution, achieving tangible ends can lay claim to an upper hand over a declaration that everyone assures will derail progress on some Turkey-related foreign affairs project or another.
Yet for a dialogue between Turkey and Armenia to be truly “honest” and “open,” truths need to be acknowledged — and spoken aloud. It is morally repugnant that Turkey continues to deny that genocide occurred within its bounds, and the international coup that its leaders have consolidated — convincing the world that any mention of a “genocide” of the Armenians would provoke waves of hostility and summarily end cooperation with Turkey — is even more perverse. Somehow, the onus is consistently placed on external actors — such as on an American president — over the consequences that his words may engender. Never is it considered how out of proportion — how utterly ridiculous — it would be for a Turkish government in 2009 to sever all relations with countries, to entirely cease its contributions to projects like that in Iraq, and to take all sorts of other rash steps that might jeopardize its own admission to the European Union, all over the use of a single word by a single world leader, about the actions of a government 90-plus years ago.
Yes, we are talking about genocide, and that is serious. But no, we are not talking about accusing a foreign government of conducting genocide (again, though, on the effectiveness thereof, see Sudan). We are doing what President Obama himself did in his speech, in acknowleding the dark parts of American history, or what the government of Australia is belatedly doing, in apologizing to the aboriginal population that suffered in that country’s history. Calling a genocide a genocide is a moral imperative, yes, but it would be better for all involved — for the Acholi people in northern Uganda, for example, who suffer ethnicity-based counter-insurgency campaigns without worldwide hand-wringing (or attention) over the g-label — if the term coined by Raphael Lemkin were less fraught with political overtones.
More than a moral decision, though, this should be a constructive one. Leverage should be concentrated on Turkey acceding to this judgment, not on urging the United States not to upset some geopolitical balance that bears striking similarity to what Turkish genocide-deniers would readily have the West believe. Would this be “poking a stick in [Turkey's] eye?” Only, if, effectively, Turkey is allowed to continue holding the stick. Order will not devolve into chaos in Turkey if we talk about the Armenian genocide in 1915 publicly and openly; the incentives weigh very heavily against Turkey acting recklessly in retaliation to such discussion. And then, perhaps, we would not have to again be having this debate next year. That, to me, seems like moving forward.
(image of Armenian Genocide Memorial, in Yerevan, Armenia, from flickr user Rita Willaert under a Creative Commons license)
Section 25 of the G-20 outcome document deals with bottom billion.
Ensuring a fair and sustainable recovery for all
25. We are determined not only to restore growth but to lay the foundation for a fair and sustainable world economy. We recognise that the current crisis has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable in the poorest countries and recognise our collective responsibility to mitigate the social impact of the crisis to minimise long-lasting damage to global potential. To this end:
* we reaffirm our historic commitment to meeting the Millennium Development Goals and to achieving our respective ODA pledges, including commitments on Aid for Trade, debt relief, and the Gleneagles commitments, especially to sub-Saharan Africa;
*the actions and decisions we have taken today will provide $50 billion to support social protection, boost trade and safeguard development in low income countries, as part of the significant increase in crisis support for these and other developing countries and emerging markets;
* we are making available resources for social protection for the poorest countries, including through investing in long-term food security and through voluntary bilateral contributions to the World Bank’s Vulnerability Framework, including the Infrastructure Crisis Facility, and the Rapid Social Response Fund;
* we have committed, consistent with the new income model, that additional resources from agreed sales of IMF gold will be used, together with surplus income, to provide $6 billion additional concessional and flexible finance for the poorest countries over the next 2 to 3 years. We call on the IMF to come forward with concrete proposals at the Spring Meetings;
* we have agreed to review the flexibility of the Debt Sustainability Framework and call on the IMF and World Bank to report to the IMFC and Development Committee at the Annual Meetings; and
* we call on the UN, working with other global institutions, to establish an effective mechanism to monitor the impact of the crisis on the poorest and most vulnerable.
The Financial Times published the leaked G20 draft communiqué yesterday in advance of the summit’s Thursday meeting in London. According (pdf) the UN Millennium Campaign, “the global economic crisis threatens to reduce development assistance by at least $4.5 billion as a result of contractions in Gross National Income, force more than 50 million more people to live in poverty and set back the fight against poverty by up to three years. Already, more than 130 million people were pushed into extreme poverty as the result of soaring food and fuel prices in 2008. This is particularly cruel and unjust given that the crisis is of the rich world’s making.”
As far as the developing world and the United Nations are concerned, the communiqué reconfirms the commitment of the G20 countries to the Millennium Development Goals and promises an unspecified amount of money for “social protection” for the poorest countries.
To the list of major concerns for the 798,000 inhabitants of the small Indian Ocean archipelago of Comoros — such as frequent coups and hyperactive volcanoes — add secession and, um, war with France? An independent country since 1975, Comoros has co-existed awkwardly with a couple of islands in the chain, together known as Mayotte, which has been “politically separate” since independence. Now, as of yesterday, with the endorsement of 95% of Mayotte voters, the islands officially constitute a departement outre-mer of France. In response, Comoros’ vice president has, naturally, suggested that this is tantamount to a declaration of war.
While France is probably not about to send its destroyers down into the Indian Ocean, it is interesting to note that, in the past, UN attempts to grant sovereignty of Mayotte to Comoros were stymied by the French Security Council veto. This is not necessarily neo-colonialism, though, as indicated by the heavy support by Mayotte’s population for incorporation into the metropole. Economic benefits abound, but there also seems to be a somewhat odd sense of national belonging, somewhat disturbingly expressed by this Mayotte legislator quoted by Reuters: “We may be black, poor and Muslim, but we have been French longer than Nice.” Interesting what the island assumes that the French think of “Frenchness.”
Via Tim Fernholz at TAPPED, here’s a good international cooperation snippet from the op-ed that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden published in 11 major newspapers in Latin America today:
The President and I understand that only by working together can our countries overcome the challenges we face. Today, we are more than just independent nations who happen to be on the same side of the globe. In today’s interconnected world, we are all neighbors who face many common concerns.
The current global economic crisis has touched virtually all of us—every country, every community, every family. Citizens everywhere are searching for answers, looking for hope—and turning to their leaders to provide them. It is our duty as global partners to heed their calls, to together forge a shared solution to a common problem.
Say what you will about the new U.S. administration, they sure know how to place op-eds that cover entire continents.
Full text after the jump.
SG: The SG met with President Ortega yesterday in Nicaragua where he visited a wind farm and praised the country’s commitment to renewable energy. The SG arrived in Costa Rica today where he is expected to lecture about “Costa Rica and the United Nations: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century”.
Iraq: The SG met with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki in Baghdad today as well as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to review the ongoing security crisis. The SG congratulated Fouad Massoum on his election as Iraq’s new President and remarked that a new government “will strengthen the unity of the country, fight effectively against terrorism and ISIS, as well as uproot the seeds of sectarianism and division.”
SG: The SG met with Israeli President Peres in Jerusalem today to encourage dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. Speaking to the press with President Peres, he again underlined the need to stop violence and begin dialogue that addresses the root causes of the conflict.
SG: The SG briefed the SC today from Ramallah where he reiterated his message from today’s earlier press conference in Tel Aviv with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to: “Stop fighting. Start talking. And take on the root causes of the conflict.” The SG will continue travelling this week to Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
SG: The SG arrived in Cairo today where he will meet with the Foreign Minister, President el-Sisi and US Secretary of State Kerry to promote the Egypt-initiated ceasefire in the Middle East. Spokesman Dujarric told reporters today that “the overriding messages that [the SG] brings is, first, that the violence must stop, and needs to stop now.”