!á�� face="Verdana" size="2">On April 24, President Bush issued, as usual, a statement on the Armenian incidents. A comparison of this text with last year’s statement can provide clues to the way the Armenian issue is progressing.

Gündüz Aktan
  On April 24, President Bush issued, as usual, a statement on the Armenian incidents. A comparison of this text with last year's statement can provide clues to the way the Armenian issue is progressing.

  This year's statement too is one-sided. It refers to the Armenian incidents as a “horrible tragedy” in which only the Armenians suffered. It makes no reference at all to Turkish and Muslim deaths. It fails to point out that the incidents stemmed from a political clash between the two sides.

  Yet despite these obvious omissions, this year's statement is, in some aspects, the most favorable one of its kind to date. This is no longer a declaration but a kind of message of condolence. It is no longer titled “President's Statement on Armenian Remembrance Day” but “President's Message on the Armenian Remembrance Day.” At the end of it, the president expresses his condolences to the Armenians together with “Laura,” that is, the first lady. In other words, this year's text is written in a more cordial and less formal style.

  As in the previous cases, this statement does not describe the Armenian incidents as a genocide. It does not ask Turkey to “recognize the genocide.” Neither does it refer to Armenian demands for land and compensation. On the other hand, unlike the previous statements, it does not contain words such as “annihilation” of the Armenians. Since words of this kind had been used to describe the crime of “genocide” prior to the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948, inclusion in the text of such words in the past used to imply that the incidents had in fact been a genocide.

  However, the biggest change has been brought about by a play of words. In the 2005 text, there was a reference to the “forced exile and mass killings of as many as 1.5 million Armenians.” In the 2006 text, the order of these words has been changed. The 2006 text refers to the “mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians.” This change does not cause any significant change in meaning in Turkish. However, in English it implies that 1.5 million Armenians were not murdered. Moreover, this amounts to an indirect rejection of the Armenian argument that “1.5 million Armenians were murdered.”

  The Armenians do not limit their genocide allegations to the mass relocation of 1915. They extend these allegations to the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 in an effort to create accountability on the part of modern and present-day Turkey. By referring to the year 1915 in the 2006 statement, the U.S. president has distanced himself from the “events of the early 20th century” phrase that had been included in the previous statements.

  Just as the 2005 statement, the 2006 statement makes reference to a study conducted by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). The ICTJ, which had taken part in South Africa's “justice and reconciliation process” after the fall of the apartheid regime, conducted that study at the instigation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). The question that TARC posed to the ICTJ was, “Can the 1948 Genocide Convention apply retroactively to the 1915 incidents?” As would be expected, the ICTJ's answer was, “No, it cannot.” However, the ICTJ did not stop there. Transcending its powers, it went on to conclude that if the convention could be implemented retroactively, the Armenian incidents would have been deemed a genocide. Meanwhile, to please the Turkish side as well, it also said the Armenians were not entitled to get land and compensation.

  We never came to meet the “great jurist” that prepared the ICTJ report. One could discern from the text that he was not well informed about the Armenian incidents. ICTJ Chairman David Philips had told us about the conclusion reached in the report on several occasions before it was actually released. It was obvious that the ICTJ report was written to fit the conclusion prescribed by Philips.

  Unlike the 2005 statement, this time Bush does not express the hope that the report would bring about reconciliation between the two sides. He merely says the report has “made a significant contribution towards deepening our understanding of these events.” On the other hand, how can a person holding such a high position possibly make a reference to a report that is so sadly lacking in seriousness?

  In the 2006 statement references are made to Armenia's democratization efforts and to the way the America is encouraging its inclusion in the Euro-Atlantic family. This in fact indicates that Armenia is still far from democracy and the Western world.

  And, finally, as was the case last year, Turkey's proposal is being supported by linking the resolution of the issue to dialogue and the creation of joint commissions.

  Readers may not be satisfied with this comparison of the texts from the standpoint of diplomacy. As a matter of fact, it does not satisfy me, either. However, it is obvious that the Armenians have lost ground to an extent that cannot be ignored. This can be easily discerned from the tone of the head of the U.S. administration's “message.”