The Pope screams genocide from the Vatican, while the European Parliament does it in Brussels. As with any other year, genocide allegations are brought to the agenda again. It is claimed that the Turks have carried out genocide against the Armenians and must therefore pay reparations. We mobilize against this yet again. Political parties respond under a mutual stance. The pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) leans towards genocide politics, while some of our politicians are making rowdy remarks in their response. Meanwhile, some executives go as far as extending an invitation to the Pope to accept Islam. In reality, Turkey is also getting incorporated in genocide debates. However, Turkey's reactions to this allegation reflect reflexes which we are already acquainted with. These reflexes have been ongoing since before time: the fact that Armenians have also carried out massacres, and the fact that more people have died from the Muslims and Turks, and that history should not be exploited for political purposes, and that the West is against Turkey…
These classic arguments regarding the Armenian issue coalesce with the official ideology to a great extent. Moreover, Azerbaijan's relations with Armenia are added to this discourse. We read politics regarding Armenians through Azerbaijan. As a matter of fact, when Turkey attempted to take steps trying to overcome that discourse, it had to face protests made by Azeri deputies in Turkey. In reality, these kinds of classic arguments regarding the Armenian issue never bring an initiative. It only contains the propaganda of Turks for Turks, while making the Armenian Diaspora feel more Armenian.
The AK Party administration, throughout its rulership tenure, always headed towards approaches which went beyond the reflexes of the Old Turkey. It came up with a series of openings regarding the Armenians in Turkey. With senior officials, the AK Party government attended the funeral and the mass of Hrant Dink, the Armenian journalist who was assassinated. The Akdamar Church was reopened for service and the assets of Armenian foundations were returned. Intellectuals, who used the rhetoric of genocide and faced a great deal of prohibitions in the past, now have an opportunity to freely discuss their ideas. The Armenians also greatly benefited as Turkey was returning the rights of minorities under the scope of the democratic initiative. Furthermore, intense meetings took place between Armenia and Turkey. Presidential level visits took place. Former president Abdullah Gül held talks with his Armenian counterpart. Soccer matches were organized for the positive change of societal perception. Erdoğan offered his condolences, while Davutoğlu brought up the idea of issuing a passport for Ottoman Armenians. All of these were a reflection of the quest for a New Turkey on the Armenian issue.
In the past two years, Turkey came within a certain distance to the European Union and the U.S. It tended to use an inward-oriented language again. The democratic initiative started to revolve around the resolution process to a great extent.
Without a doubt, with the Arab Spring, we had been isolated by the West and Turkey was also disappointed. Relations between Turkey and the West were further alienated when Turkey's enthusiasm in the issue of Syria and the entrenchment of democracy in the Middle East were left without a response from the West. And now the West is claiming that Turkey has committed genocide against the Armenians and Turkey is being brought to account. History is judged solely by focusing on the Turks. This is mostly because they turn a blind eye to the Turkish-Muslim deportations carried out in the Balkans and the Caucasian region, which resulted in the deaths of millions of people within the same century. Nobody turns to these states and asks them why they committed genocide.
All of this shows that Turkey is moving away from the Armenian opening that they have been carrying out. More so, Turkey is leaning towards classic rhetoric again. This brings the question of “Is the AK Party getting closer to the opposition parties CHP and MHP in this regard?” Because the views of the opposition regarding the Armenian issue have always stayed the same as the rhetoric that existed in the Old Turkey. That is to say, they used rhetoric like “The Armenians massacred more of us, the West is already against us, and they are using the Armenians against Turkey, etc.” The AK Party was the only one which changed these approaches through bold new steps. AK Party is obliged to represent the New Turkey in all spheres. This is why it should neither rely on genocide arguments, nor the responses given to these based on the rhetoric of the Old Turkey.
