THE TURKISH BURDEN

Understanding the country’s denial of the Armenian Genocide is not so straightforward

Tomorrow is likely to be a difficult day for the Turkish Embassy’s diplomats. The Armenian community is organizing an event which will take place at the Luna Park stadium, in order to commemorate the centenary of the beginning of what we now know as the Armenian Genocide.

To make matters worse for the diplomats, many Argentine sectors seem to sympathize with such commemoration. These include Pope Francis, the Argentine Government and many members of the Argentine public

In fact, the Pope had a public confrontation with the Turkish Government. And Foreign Minister Timerman’s presence in Armenia attending the central celebration did not do much in terms of improving diplomatic relations between Ankara and Buenos Aires.

For many, including this writer who — being a Jew — is very sensitive about the issue, it is not difficult to sympathize with the Armenians. And to respect their struggle for recognition.

So much so, that it is easy to paint ourselves into a “black or white” corner which might be unfair to the Turks. So it might be worthwhile to look at the issue with a wider perspective. Not to join the Turkish denial but to try to understand it.

First and foremost, it should be noted that many Turks do not agree with their President Recep Erdogan’s seemingly callous denial of the genocide. On 24 August, many progressive Turkish organizations demonstrated in the streets, demanding that their country accepts responsibility for the genocide. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the government authorized the demonstrations and actually sent in the police to protect the demonstrators from hostile nationalists.

Interestingly enough, the demand seems to be fuelled by (young) age rather than ideology. Many demonstrators told press reporters that they do not discuss with their parents their views about the genocide. The latter — in many cases — simply choose not to speak about or discuss the issue.

Older generation Turks and their government are not the only ones who find it difficult to deal with the memory of the Armenian Genocide. Only 26 states officially acknowledge that it took place. They include Argentina, Uruguay and the Holy See. Curiously, Israel is not part of the list. The same can be said about the United States.

These — as well as other countries — studiously avoid using the term “genocide” referring instead to “the events which took place in 1915” or a “humanitarian tragedy”. Apparently, today’s political considerations prevail over the truth about yesterday.

Understandably, the Ankara government is very sensitive about the term “genocide.” Perhaps this has more to do with national pride than with not acknowledging the 1915 events. Moreover, many argue that the Turkish Government is not totally inflexible about the moral dilemma between pride and truth, and remark that — in the last few years — Turkish President Erdogan mentioned the events and acknowledged the Armenian’s feelings. They point out that, perhaps, the time has come for the truth to take priority. Furthermore, they point at the German President Joachim Gauck as one of the possible leading lights of this change.

Gauck was one of the foreign leaders who attended the 24 August event organized by the Armenian Government. He was brave enough to cite the example of Germany’s efforts to come to terms with its historical responsibilities, not only in the Second World War but also on the Armenian Genocide. The German president said that “we Germans collectively still have to come to terms with the past, namely when it comes to shared responsibility and perhaps even complicity in the genocide of the Armenians.”

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

BEYOND 10 DECEMBER

International alliances could shift after the elections

The seventh Summit of the Americas hosted by Panama is likely to go down in history. Not because it achieved any substantial progress on the subject of “Prosperity with Equity” which was this year’s theme. But because it provided the stage for the beginning of the thaw process between the US and Cuba. True, there are no guarantees and perhaps in only a few weeks we will all be looking at a missed opportunity. But — unless and until that happens — we have “the duty of hope,” as Raymond Aaron would have said.

In sharp contrast with the sympathetic exchanges between Raúl Castro and Barak Obama, President Cristina Kirchner shot from the hip, something that was, in fact, quite predictable. Argentina’s relations with the US have deteriorated quite significantly. In addition, there might be some mileage in anti-Americanism. According to the Pew Research Centre “less than four-in-ten Argentines (36 percent) are positively disposed toward Washington. In the seven surveys the Pew Research Centre has conducted in Argentina since 2002, never more than about four-in-ten Argentines have expressed favourable sentiment toward their big neighbour to the north.”

By contrast, there is no empirical evidence to show that this government’s choice of China and Russia as new partners has a popular support which reflects such level of anti-American sentiment. Moreover, the strategic alliance with China triggers many criticisms. Rather than ideology they have to do with business. Chinese — underpriced — imports are hurting Argentine industry. The amount of anti-dumping procedures submitted by local manufacturers against imports of that origin, amply proves this.

The same cannot be said about the alliance with Venezuela. This case is quite interesting because Maduro, and before him Chávez, are demons for some and heroes for others. The divide is mainly political and ideological, reflecting the split in Argentine society. However, some wonder if the positive views about Venezuela to be heard from the Frente Para la Victoria politicians are not limited to the circles which are closer to the president and the hard-line Kirchnerites. And if this might change after December 10, regardless of who is the new president.

Perhaps this week will offer some clues about this.

In the last few days, some snippets in news portals and the odd newspaper, have heralded a meeting which will take place at CARI, the Argentine Council for International Relations on Wednesday 15 April. The Council’s website details that the “Grupo Consenso” (Consensus Group) will make a presentation about its views on Argentina’s foreign policy challenges. Rumour has it that this Group (which came together three months ago) disagrees with the strong links to Venezuela and asks difficult questions about the alliances with Russia and China.

A look at the list of members of the group, shows that all of them are “names” in Argentina’s foreign policy circles, and most are former high-level diplomats. But, more interestingly, it shows that many of them are currently advising the three presidential hopefuls that lead in the polls. (In alphabetical order: Macri, Massa and Scioli.) This seems to be trailing some significant changes in Argentina’s foreign policy. And highlights some interesting issues.

One of them has to do with what in Argentina is called “state policy.” And refers to all significant political parties agreeing on some — very basic — strategic international issues. Most agree that this is quite desirable. The Consensus Group seems to be announcing that such state foreign policies are possible in Argentina. Many argue that this has been missing in Argentina during the Kirchner presidencies. True, today’s US shows the same shortcoming, with some Republicans giving Obama a very tough time. But this (hopefully) will prove to be the exception rather than the rule.

The Consensus Group seems to have a heavy agenda that will need basic agreements.

First, there is the issue of Venezuela, which has to do with what — in this writer’s view — is a healthy sign of political courage. These chaps seem ready to challenge the conventional wisdom of a good chunk of Argentina’s voters about the Maduro government. Which is a way of sending a signal about coherence to both local and foreign observers. Maduro’s Human Rights record is far from brilliant. And being anti-US does not suffice as an excuse for this.

Then there is the longer-term issue of Argentina’s agreements with China and Russia. While cooling off an excessive closeness with Venezuela depends only on political will, the same cannot be said of the links with Russia and — especially — China. In both cases there are long-term commitments, financial agreements and — on items like soybean exports — a degree of dependency.

In a perfect world, a president that has less than 10 months left in office should take this into account and have some consultations with the opposition parties before moving forward. But it does not seem to be the case. Moreover, the government has just announced that Cristina Kirchner will be travelling to Russia on April 22. And that the president will enter into some new — unspecified — agreements.

Argentina’s present and future foreign policy seems to be confronted with complicated problems. And it looks as if some of the members of the Consensus Group will be in charge of dealing with them. They will have to move quite carefully. Possibly starting next Wednesday.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

SUMMIT CHOREOGRAPHY TO BE PERFORMED IN PANAMÁ

CFK, Dilma, Obama, Maduro to face tense meeting this week

Summits can be quite effective, provided they have clear –as well as limited– objectives and all the players are in the same league. The recent meeting which shaped what seems to be an agreement with Iran on nuclear policy clearly belongs to this category.

But there are other kinds of summits. Later this week, on April 10 and 11, the Republic of Panama will host the 7th Summit of the Americas’. Its official aim, seems to need a long-winded description. In this particular case, the aim is “to discuss common policy issues, affirm shared values, mobilize ambitions and commit to concerted actions, at national and regional level, in order to strengthen democracy and governance, help reduce poverty and inequities, increase opportunities in the Americas and face new challenges”. If you have had the patience to read the preceding lines, you can also find out that the official programme adds that this year the focus will be on “Prosperity with Equity: The Challenge of Cooperation in the Americas.”

Undoubtedly, these are very positive aims and the main focus is clearly targeted at a serious issue. In fact the same can be said of the previous summits as well as of many others organized every year, all around the world. Unfortunately –if one is to be realistic– what is normally left of these aims and objectives is little more than a vast number of well-written and argued papers which –normally– have little chances of implementation in the real word.

So: what is the aim of this kind summitry? One could suggest that these summits offer the leaders of the less powerful countries the chance to rub shoulders with the more relevant players. They also offer a stage where every player –big or small– has the chance to have its say, knowing that –even if delivered in front of an almost empty room– whatever is said, will go on record. Not much for Mr Obama. But very attractive for the less powerful players. Especially if they want to go on record confronting the “rich and mighty”. And in some –albeit very few– cases, the small can defeat the powerful.

One case in point is what happened at the Mar del Plata summit back in 2005, where a number of countries managed to defeat the Bush initiative of a Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Another interesting aspect of these summits are “the margins”. In fact, at next week’s summit, the most significant portions of the political action will take place on occasion and in the context of the summit but –possibly– quite unrelated to the official event.

Barack Obama will be attending and he is likely to be very much in the public eye as one of the key participants in what may become the two main shows offered at this summit: the US’ rapprochement with Cuba and the barrage of anti-US criticisms that Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro plans to voice in Panama. The main target of the Venezuelan is likely to be the recent executive order issued by Obama, declaring Venezuela a “ threat to the US’ security”.

True to style, Maduro is reported to be collecting ten million signatures that endorse a letter demanding that Obama cancel the executive order. And –apparently– he plans to hand it over (symbolically?) in Panama. Clearly not in silence.

In addition to these impromptu events, there is the game of musical chairs of the bilateral meetings which take place or fail to happen at the summits.

The Argentine president has announced that she will be attending the summit and, so far, these plans appear firm. An educated guess is that she will be quite vocal in the support of her Venezuelan colleague. In addition to the permanent defence of Maduro, the bilateral disagreements between Argentina and the US keep piling up. The latest US statements about the poor state of the Argentine economy –as well as the reply from Buenos Aires– have made the list of existing friction points (vultures / holdouts case, the new troubles with Citibank) even longer. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be no plan for a bilateral meeting between Cristina and Obama.

Brazil’s Dilma Rouseff also plans to be in Panama. And it is far from clear if she will meet her Argentine counterpart.

In theory, such a meeting should be quite necessary. Given the vital role that Brazil plays in Argentina’s trade, the recent devaluation in Argentina’s neighbour is likely to have a quite negative impact on its economy and –after all– both countries are linked by Mercosur. But sources in Brazil mention the reasons that might discourage Dilma from holding a bilateral. One is China. Some Brazilians perceive that Argentina’s recent agreement with China is a stab in their back. It creates an unwelcome competition in the area, at a rather complicated moment. The Brazilians also accuse Argentina of imposing many trade restrictions to their exports and of refusing to revise the situation, or ignoring Brazilian complaints. And , finally, there is the fact that Cristina is one of the Sao Paulo industrialists’ favourite demons, due to such trade restrictions. Given Dilma’s own drop in popularity, some of her advisers are telling her that the last thing she needs is a one-on-one a photo with Cristina.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD