Reconciliation under the Shadow of Diaspora Politics: Some Lessons from the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC)

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2 , 235 - 257 , 30.09.2014

Nazif Mandacı

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.28144

Cited By: 1

https://izlik.org/JA64XG67DE

Öz

Abstract

Reconciliation is beyond diplomatic rapprochement and consequently strategic partnership in its maxim. It is irrelevant to transaction costs; moreover, “independent from them” since it is normative-oriented. Literature of reconciliation contains some concepts which cannot be “appreciated”, literally, in diplomatic realm, such as forgiving and forgetting, having theological connotations.  To the contrary, international relations literature generally accept that “primordial factors like ethnicity and religion had no part in rational explanations for the way the world works”(Fox and Sandler 2004: 9); and nobody appreciates any political decision that sacrifices national interest on the altar of  virtue. This study aims at elaborating on the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission which Turkey and Armenia had formed in 2001 within the framework of the aforementioned arguments.

Keywords: Reconciliation, TARC, Diaspora.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Reconciliation , TARC , Diaspora

DİYASPORA SİYASETİ GÖLGESİNDE UZLAŞMA: TÜRK-ERMENİ UZLAŞMA KOMİSYONU’NDAN BAZI DERSLER

https://izlik.org/JA64XG67DE

Öz

Uzlaşma süreçleri diplomatik yakınlaşmalar ve en azamisinden stratejik
ortaklıkların çok ötesindeki durumsallıkları ifade etmektedir. Normatif yönlü olduklarından
diplomatik anlamda ilişki kurmanın beraberinde getirebileceği maliyetlerden tamamıyla
bağımsızdırlar. Uzlaşma literatürü diplomatik platformda genel olarak önemsenmeyen,
hatta ötesinde teolojik yönü bile bulunan bağışlamak ya da affetmek gibi kavramlara yer
vermektedir. Bunun tersine uluslararası ilişkiler literatürüne bakıldığında etnisite ya da din
gibi primordiyal faktörlerin dünyada işlerin nasıl yürüdüğüne dair akılcı açıklamalar
içinde kendilerine pek yer bulamadıkları gözlemlenmektedir (Fox ve Sandler, 2004: 9).
Dahası, kimse ulusal çıkarları erdemlilik altarında feda edecek politik kararları
onaylamamaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye ve Ermenistan arasında 2001 yılında oluşturulan
Türk-Ermeni Uzlaşma Komisyonu’nu bu çerçeve içinde değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Uzlaşma , TARC , Diaspora

Kaynakça

• Aghjayan, G. (21.07.2001). A reconciliation based on denial. Armenian Weekly.
• Astarijan, H. (28.07.2001). The illegal child. Armenian Weekly.
• Atabaki, T. and Mehendela, S. (Eds.) (2005). Central Asia and Caucasus: Transnationalism and diaspora. London-New York: Routledge.
• Balakian, P. (16.07.2001) Letter to the editor of the New York Times. New York Times.
• Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation. Political Psychology, 21 (2): 351-365.
• Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice & responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burton, J. and Dukes, F. (1990). Conflict practices in management, settlement and resolution. New York: St. Martin Press.
• Cohen, R. (2008). Global diasporas. London-New York: Routledge.
• De Waal, T. (02.03.2001). “Recipes for stability in the Caucasus”. Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), CRS Issue 72. http://iwpr.net/report-news/recipes-stability-caucasus, (23.09.2010).
• Dufoix, S. (2003). Diasporas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Dwyer, S. (1999). Reconciliation for realists. Ethics and International Affairs, 13 (1): 81-98.
• Feldman, L. G. (1999). The principle and practice reconciliation in German foreign policy: Relations with France, Israel, Poland and the Czech Republic. (Royal Institute of) International Affairs, 75 (2): 333-356.
• Fox, J. and Sandler. S. (2004). Bringing religion into international relations. New York: Palgrave.
• Frantz, D. (10.07.2001). Unofficial commission acts to ease Turkish-Armenian enmity. New York Times.
• Geukjian, O. (2005). Book review, David L. Phillips, unsilencing the past: Track two diplomacy and Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. Peace, Conflict and Development, 7: 314-320.
• Gibson, J. L. (2004). Does truth lead to reconciliation? Testing the causal assumptions of the South African truth and reconciliation process. American Journal of Political Science, 48 (2): 201-217.
• Gopin, M. (2000). Between Eden and Armageddon: The future of the world religions, violence and peacemaking. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ishkanian, A. (2008). Democracy building and civil society in post-Soviet Armenia. London-New York: Routledge.
• Laguerre, M. S. (2006). Diaspora, politics and globalization, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Magdashian, P. and Tadevosian, A. (18.11.2001). “Troubled diaspora homecoming”, Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), CRS Issue 110. http://iwpr.net/report-news/armenia-troubled-diaspora-homecoming, (23.09.2012).
• Magdashian, P. (11.02.2002). “Travel to Turkey eases”, Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), CRS Issue 115. http://iwpr.net/report-news/armenia-travel-turkey-eases, (23.09.2010).
• Mandacı, N. (2002). Is Montenegro the next?. Perceptions, 6 (4): 79-96.
• Marrus, M. R. (2006). Official apologies and the quest for historical justice. (Occasional Paper, No. 111). Toronto: University of Toronto, Munk Centre for International Studies.
• Mendeloff, D. (2004). Truth seeking, truth-telling, and post-conflict peacebuilding: Curb the enthusiasm. International Studies Review, 6 (3): 355-380.
• Norval, A. J. (1998). Memory, identity and (im)possibility of reconciliation: The work of the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa. Constellations, 5 (2): 250-265.
• Phillips, A. L. (1998). The Politics of reconciliation: Germany in East Central Europe. German Politics, 7 (2): 64-85.
• Safran, W. (2004). Deconstructing and comparing diasporas. W. Kokot, K. Tololyan and C. Alfonso (Eds.) Diaspora, identity and religion: New directions in theory and research: In 9-29. London-New York: Routledge.
• Sassounian, H. (19.07.2001a). Effort to reconcile with Turks causes discord among Armenians, California Courier.
• Sassounian, H. (09.08.2001b). Reconciliation commission members deepen rift by lashing out critics. California Courier.
• Sheffer, G. (2003). Diaspora politics at home abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sonentz-Papazian, T. (21.07.2001). AAA to the rescue… How to restart the stalled vehicle of denial. Armenian Weekly.
• NTV-MSNBC (25.10.2001). “Türkiye AP Raporundan Memnun”, http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/115099.asp
• Sökefeld, M. (2006). Mobilizing in transnational space: a social movement approach to the formation of diaspora. Global Networks, 6 (3): 265-284.
• Staub, E. (2006). Reconciliation after genocide, mass killings, or intractable conflict: Understanding the roots of violence, psychological recovery and steps toward a general theory. Political Psychology, 27 (6): 867-894.
• -
• Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea Culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Tedovisian, A. (08.12.2000). “Armenian ghost haunt Istanbul”, Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), CRS Issue 61. http://iwpr.net/report-news/armenian-ghosts-haunt-istanbul, (23.09.2010).
• Wallensteen, P. (2002). Understanding conflict resolution, London: Sage Publications.
• Whittaker, D. J. (2002) Conflict and reconciliation in the contemporary world. London-New York: Routledge.
• Note: All articles and editorials excepted from Asbarez Online and Armenian Weekly is digitally available in the archives on the domain of the newslines located at asbarez.com and armenianweekly.com respectively.