Compassion in international relations: the case study of armenian genocide recognition

Compassion in International Relations: The Case Study of Armenian Genocide Recognition Not all decisions in international politics can be explained by power and interest, as realists would suggest. Constructivists claim identity plays an important role for interaction of countries and nations. Some nations decide to choose the most painful part of their history and are building their special identity – victim identity. In first part of this paper the concept of identity, especially victim identity, is analyzed. Then two competing identities are analyzed – Armenian victim identity and Turkish “denial identity”. Reasons for selection of these particular identities, ways of promotion and making it priority of foreign policy agenda are discussed in second and third parts of this paper. Special identity can generate soft power in international politics only in case if it is recognized by other countries. Therefore, Armenia listed recognition of the Armenian Genocide in top priorities list of Foreign Policy. Although right after becoming the independent country, first Armenian President was trying to be “rational” and was refusing claims of recognition by Turkey in order to assure good relationship, victimhood was deep in identity of Armenian society and diaspora, therefore, such foreign policy was not widely accepted. So later Armenian policy makers were making sure not to repeat this mistake and were giving to recignition of genocide a very special place in Armenian Foreign Policy. State coordinated campaigns and civic initiatives have increased public awareness about the issue, and so far, 28 countries recognized Armenian genocide. By recognizing Armenian identity, they denied competing Turkish identity (claiming not being responsible for Armenian genocide), which is being promoted with the same amount of efforts. This paper tries to find an answer: what kind of power leads the decision of other countries choosing to support small, not strategically important country and take risk to anger much powerful actor of international affairs? In case of Germany, it had even more to lose: good bilateral relationship with Turkey and, even more important, strategically important alley in high peak of refugee crisis in Europe. But regardless that, German Bundestag nearly unanimously voted for recognition of Armenian genocide in June 2016. In most cases it is difficult to evaluate direct effect of soft power and prove its effect to implementation of foreign policy goals, therefore it is the most criticised aspect of soft power theory. In this case we can see how the decision by Armenia to choose victim identity and constantly promote it is being converted into soft power and push into political agenda of other country activities that are important and useful for Armenian Foreign Policy goals. Analysis of rhetoric of dedicated political activist Erika Steinbach, strategical documents and arguments of Bundestag members before final vote that led to recognition of Armenian genocide reveals that one of the leading arguments for decision was compassion. Members of Bundestag stressed the importance of recognition as a way to express their compassion to grievance of Armenian people, to share responsibility for mediation of bilateral relationship, and to share the burden of guilt – for not preventing Armenian genocide as former ally of Ottoman Empire. Armenian themselves and many human right advocates all around the world stress the importance of recognition of genocide in order to prevent it in the future. They say would be needed to disclose all the cruelty of humanity in the past in order to ensure any early warning sign would be met with highest concern and world society wouldn’t observing just observing. And, finally, would fulfil the promise humanity gave after the Holocaust, most recognized genocide off all times, –– newer again