What if?

Was the prime minister not telling the nation the truth? Is the Foreign Ministry trying to fool foreign leaders and parliaments on the eve of the April 24 anniversary of the so-called Armenian genocide in a bid to stop them using the word "genocide"? That is, was the Foreign Ministry statement an effort to "save the day," or was there a genuine wish in Ankara to establish full diplomatic relations and open its border gates with Armenia (closed immediately after Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh), or was it a product of the "Let’s leave this April 24 behind with no major problem with some palliative moves, and who knows what will happen next April 24," or that sort Machiavellian approach we have become accustomed to observe over the past six years of neo-Ottomanist "foreign policy successes" of the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, administration? What has changed since Erdoğan, Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek and many other top executives of the AKP were declaring in front of cameras that Turkey would not let down Azerbaijan and would never open the border and normalize relations with Yerevan as long as the occupation of Azerbaijani territory continued? Did the Armenian occupation end? Is there any statement from Yerevan saying it has worked out a roadmap with Baku for its withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani territory?

What might be the reason behind this move, which smells like an overdose of political opportunism? Was Turkey trying to make it easy for American President Barack Hussein Obama not to use the word "genocide" in what has become a traditional April 24 statement of the White House? Coincidentally, a few hours before the Foreign Ministry made that statement, the Bulgarian parliament recognized the alleged genocide. Apparently, Bulgarian parliament recognizing the alleged genocide, however, was apparently no big insult for the Turkish Foreign Ministry, but helping out Obama not to use the contentious word at the expense of blowing up fraternal relations with Azerbaijan was far more important.

Does it worth?
Opening the border and normalizing relations with Armenia will be, of course, moves conceivable within the framework of Turkey’s strategic interests, particularly in its bid to have easier land and rail access to the Central Asian republic. Such moves also fit well with Turkey’s aim of playing a bigger role in the Caucasus. It also will be in line with the Turkish policy of establishing good relations with all its neighbors. Irrespective whether it is condemned as "Turkey has been held hostage of Armenian-Azeri conflict" or opposed with a milder but emotional "Turkey has to stand tall with Azerbaijan against Armenian occupation" position, the normalization of relations with Armenia should not come as a payback to a bonus of the American president not using the "genocide" word. Particularly, if there were progress in Azerbaijani-Armenian talks and if such a step by Turkey might produce a killer effect on the Azerbaijani position at those talks, can we still continue to ignore the sentimental outbursts in Baku against Turkey?

Whereas, is the "genocide" issue not the sole bullet in the U.S. revolver? If the U.S. president pulls the trigger and fires the bullet, the U.S. will become yet one of the several dozen countries that politically "recognized" the 1915 events as "genocide." Can the U.S. fire the same bullet again? No. Once fired, it will be over. Will it change anything apart from a serious blow to Turkish-American relations? No. Will it help the relatives of the 1915 victims, irrespective of their ethnicities, forget their pain? No. But, the U.S. will no longer be able to use the "genocide card" in blackmailing Turkey to undertake decisions and policies we otherwise would not subscribe to.What if Obama uses the contentious word? Will he be using the last bullet in the U.S. revolver and relieving us from decades old blackmail, or will he be helping out any noble cause that we are unaware of? Is it worth to turn our back to Azerbaijan, thus on ourselves?