Author: Chatinian Lara

ARMEN AYVAZYAN: INSTEAD OF READING THE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION ADOPTED IN US, THEY PLAY THE GAME OF "SHE LOVES ME, SHE LOVES ME NOT" IN ARMENIA

AZG daily
10 Oct 2007
YERKIR weekly
REGNUM News Agency
12.10.2007

This is the English version of the article originally published in
Armenian and Russian

The process of the international recognition of the Armenian
Genocide is at the threshold of a new phase: it is very possible
that the U.S. House of Representatives (and the Senate, with lesser
likelihood) will adopt the Resolution 106 on the Armenian Genocide,
introduced in the U.S. Congress in January. If it were to happen,
many other countries would adopt similar resolutions in a chain
reaction. However, what will follow then? That is the principal
question, which unfortunately has not been answered by the Armenian
political structures. And where could such an answer come from if the
currently achieved and discussed recognitions were not subjected to
a more or less adequate analysis? We are facing serious problems.

Above all is the problem of information and analysis (including
elementary awareness). The media reports daily on the process of
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. However, who
in Armenia has seen or read the text of the very recent R106? Has
the Armenian press printed the actual resolution to enable its
serious and professional study by political forces, experts and
the public in general? Where is its official Armenian translation
provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia? Where is
the comparative analysis of this and previous resolutions adopted by
the U.S. Congress in 1975 and 1984 (the 148th and 247th resolutions,
respectively)? Nothing of this sort has been undertaken. Here, it will
only be noted that the R106 qualitatively differs from the 1975 and
1984 resolutions in its thorough historical and legal formulation (it
consists of 30 articles well supported by the facts and arguments). It
confirms the historical truth. It outlines the chronological framework
of the Armenian Genocide more comprehensively: from 1915 to 1923
(unlike the resolution adopted in 1975, which only noted the year of
1915). It clearly states the number of victims: 2 million deportees,
of whom 1.5 million were killed.

The resolution underscores a circumstance that is very important from
political and legal perspectives: "the Armenian Genocide… succeeded
in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence of Armenians in
their historic homeland."

The problem of correct and sober assessment is particularly
sensitive. What would the adoption of this resolution mean to
Armenia? For example, Italy, Canada, Poland recognized the Armenian
Genocide, but what changes took place in their policies towards
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, or the problem of Artsakh? In reality,
nothing changed. Most importantly, to what extent can such resolutions
contribute to the most urgent task – the guarantee of the security
of Armenia?

The question of Genocide recognition was raised even before the
independence of Armenia and for decades it was the main field of
political activity of the Armenian Diaspora – the Spyurk. However,
today the situation of Armenia and Armenians has changed radically:
there is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the situation in Javakhq,
the Azerbaijani-Turkish blockade, the danger of the resumption of
war. In short, the problem of the physical security of Armenia is a
very real one.

However, the genocide recognition campaign, conducted without serious
research and planning, still remains the main aim of political activity
of the Diaspora, consuming huge amounts of national resources and
human potential at the expense of efforts on other important national
fronts. In their activities the Diaspora’s organizational structures
give an obvious priority to the international recognition of the
Genocide over current security problems of Armenia.

Armenia itself still separates the Karabakh problem from the process
of international recognition of the Genocide, and considers it apart
even from the Armenian Question at large. But the possible universal
recognition of the Genocide in the not-so-distant future will not
mean the vanishing of the Armenian Question from the international
political arena. Since the essence of the Armenian question is not
the international recognition of the Genocide, but the creation of a
mature Armenian state on such a territory, which would insure a safe,
viable existence and development of the Armenian civilization. From
that perspective there are no developed plans on further activities
of the Armenians.

In short, the Armenian political elite and society on the whole
display an irresponsible, almost childish approach to the question
of international recognition of the Genocide, one that resembles the
whimsical game "she loves me, she loves me not", in this case with
the refrain "she recognizes, she does not recognize". In the meantime,
a correct reorientation (regardless how difficult) of this process may
give immense political capital to Armenia and the Armenians in general.

It is long overdue that Armenia and Armenians evaluated similar
resolutions with their own (still not formulated) criteria, which
would correspond to the historical reality as well as national and
state interests. Below are five main criteria for such assessment:

~@¢Accurate indication of the chronology of the Genocide: 1894-1923;

~@¢Necessary mentioning of the fact that the Armenians were annihilated
in their homeland – the western part of Armenia;

~@¢Unambiguous indication of the state, which committed this
crime against humanity, i.e. Ottoman Turkey, as well as the direct
condemnation of its legal successor, the Republic of Turkey, for
denying the Armenian Genocide and committing hostile acts towards
present-day Armenia (the blockade, the refusal to establish diplomatic
relations, the information warfare, the military aid to Azerbaijan,
etc.);

~@¢Recognition of the responsibility of the Turkish state before the
Armenian state, the ultimate representative of the interests of the
Armenian nation, and the necessity of compensating, particularly,
the Republic of Armenia (implying, above all, the territorial
compensation);

~@ Mandatory linkage of the consequences of the Genocide with the
current geopolitical situation in the region. In other words –
the acknowledgement of the foremost effect of the Genocide on the
security of Armenia and the region.

The truth is that the Genocide created a territorial problem by
decreasing the historical area of habitation of Armenians to a
critically dangerous scale, threatening the very existence of the
nation. It is exactly in this context that one must view the issue of
liberation of Artsakh (thanks to which the borders of Armenia acquired
defensibility and minimally necessary strategic depth), as well as
the provision for the secure development of the Armenians of Javakhq.

The task of Armenian diplomacy is to skillfully tie the international
recognition of the Armenian Genocide to a just resolution of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict and the achievement of lasting security
in the region. By recognizing the Genocide, the international
community is obligated to make the next logical step and recognize
the right of Armenians to Artsakh, including all of the liberated
territory. Meanwhile, in parallel with the increase in attention to
the issue of the Genocide in the publications of western media as
well as in the politics of certain countries, recently, there is a
notable tendency of strengthening pro-Azerbaijani positions regarding
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This may completely devalue the process
of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

The above-mentioned criteria regarding responsibility and compensation
have not yet been included in any of the resolutions adopted by
international institutions. The R106 is not an exception either. It
does not contain a clear and unambiguous condemnation of the current
Republic of Turkey.

Though by accepting the timeframe of the Armenian Genocide between
the years of 1915 to 1923, the resolution necessarily implies the
responsibility of the founders of this republic as well (they were
in control of the most of current territory of Turkey since 1920).

It is true that the last section of the resolution calls upon the
US President "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States
reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues
related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in
the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the
consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution." However,
the fair statement about "the consequences of the failure to realize
a just resolution" is ambiguous.

A direct referring to the current geopolitical predicament of Armenia
as a consequence of the Genocide is absolutely needed.

Moreover, after meeting with the Turkish Ambassador on October 10th
of 2007 the second-ranking Democrat in the House, Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer, a supporter of the R106, expressed hope that Turkey would
realize it is not a condemnation of its current government but rather
of "another government, at another time." The Democratic Representative
Tom Lantos, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
in turn, said he would soon propose a second resolution reaffirming
the US-Turkish alliance and friendship.

Anyway, time does not wait. It is today that Armenia must begin
the development and realization of the next phase of the policy for
overcoming the consequences of the Genocide. Tomorrow, when it will
have on the one hand the universal recognition of the Genocide and,
on the other, a dwindled and weakened Diaspora (as a result of an
accelerated process of assimilation) it will be too late.

The pragmatism of the foreign policy of Armenia means not the blatant
ignoring of the apparent animosity of Turkey, but the comprehensive
actualization of the Armenian Question, first of all with the help
of realistically thought out propositions regarding territorial
compensations to Armenia.

ARMEN AYVAZYAN Ph.D. in Political Science, Director of the "Ararat"
Center for Strategic Research

–Boundary_(ID_mNrQCXz2quEN2V4GtLrH1g)–

ARABS GAIN FROM US-TURKEY CRISIS
by Scott Sullivan

The Conservative Voice, NC
37.html
Oct 15 2007

By assaulting Turkey, President Bush and the US Congress have sharply
increased Arab leverage over US policy in Iraq and opened the way to
large scale Arab participation in resolution of the Iraq crisis.

The US Congress has assaulted Turkey by advancing the Armenia
Genocide resolution, which now awaits final approval by the House of
Representatives, possibly as early as this week, according to House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

President Bush has assaulted Turkey by siding with the PKK in its
dispute with Turkey. Bush has refused to order US forces in Iraq to
deter PKK cross border raids into Turkey. Bush has even insisted that
the Turkish government negotiate PKK issues directly with Kurdish
President Massoud Barzani, who Turkey considers to be pro-PKK.

Turkey has threatened to retaliate against the US by withdrawing
Turkish logistical support for US forces in Iraq. Turkey provides
substantial logistics support to US operations in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. Turkish public opinion against the US for its pro-PKK
stance will almost certainly compel Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan
to constrict the US logistics supply corridor.

The loss of Turkish logistical support would strike hard at US
operations from two directions. First, the progress of Operation Surge
could be halted just as it is beginning to have an impact beyond the
Sunnis in Anbar province. Such a setback would compel President Bush
and Congress to reconsider the option of an early withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq.

Second, the option of withdrawing US forces from Iraq could become far
more hazardous, given the loss of the existing option of withdrawing
through the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq to Turkey.

As a result of losing Turkish support for US logistics, the must choose
between two competing alternatives for a new logistics corridor —
Iran or the Arab states. In short, either Iran or the Arab states would
step forward to support US forces in Iraq. Whoever steps forward would
gain considerable leverage over future US policy in Iraq.Iran would
gain leverage by offering the Persian Gulf access as a substitute
for Turkish access to Iraq.

Iran could offer access via the Iraqi port of Basra, which Iran could
easily bring under its control.Iran would then be in position to
reinforce its existing position as the US’s primary partner in Iran,
and to move ahead with its plan to partition Iraq with the Kurds.

Under this scenario, Iran would take Basra and all of southern Iraq,
and the Kurds would take Kirkuk and northern Iraq. Under such a
scenario it is possible to imagine joint US-Iranian Revolutionary
Guards (IRGC) patrols in Basra.

Meanwhile, the Arabs would gain leverage by offering Jordan and
Kuwait as substitutes for Turkish logistical support. However, the
Arabs would insist upon no partition of Iraq between Iran and the
Kurds. The Arabs are terrified by the emergence of Iranian-Kurdish
collaboration in dividing Iraq, backstopped by the US. For the first
time since the US occupation of Iraq, Arab influence would displace
Iranian influence in Iraq.

In short, as a result of the US-Turkish logistics crisis, the US must
choose between reinforcing its existing partnership with Iran and the
Kurds in Iraq, a partnership that leads directly to Iraq’s partition.

Alternatively, in a second option, the US would build a new
relationship with the Arab states in Iraq, one directed at opposing
Iraq’s partition.

Turkish PM Erdogan clearly hopes the US will choose the Arab option,
at which point Turkey could re-enter the US logistical supply
operation. Prime Minister Erdogan and the Aabs would then displace
Iran as the US partner in Iraq. Iran, in turn, will be isolated.

Excellent!

Financial Times, UK
Oct 14 2007

Turkey-US military ties under threat

By Vincent Boland in Ankara and Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: October 14 2007 18:49 | Last updated: October 14 2007
18:49

Turkey’s most senior general warned on Sunday that military ties with
the US would be severely damaged if the House of Representatives
adopted a resolution labelling the massacre of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire as genocide. The warning comes amid signs that
relations between Washington and Ankara are starting to unravel.

General Yashar Buyukanit told Milliyet newspaper that the US had
`shot itself in the foot’ in its handling of the Armenian resolution,
adopted by a House committee last week, and by failing to clamp down
on the PKK Kurdish separatist movement in northern Iraq, which Turkey
blames for the killings of at least 30 Turkish soldiers and civilians
in the past two weeks.

In comments broadcast on Sunday, Nancy Pelosi, US House speaker,
reaffirmed that she intended to take the measure to a vote in the
full House after its approval last week by the Foreign Affairs
Committee. However, she declined to say whether she would press ahead
if George W. Bush, the US president, told her that the issue
could endanger US troops.

`The president hasn’t called me on it, so that’s hypothetical,’ she
said.

The non-binding bill calls on Mr Bush to `accurately characterise the
systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1.5m Armenians as
– genocide’.

The US and Turkey, which have the two largest armies in Nato, have
been close military allies since the 1950s, and military co-operation
forms the basis of their diplomatic relations. Diplomats said any
weakening of the military dimension to the relationship would have
long-term repercussions for political and economic ties.

`If this resolution that was passed in the committee also passes in
the House, our military ties with the US can never be the same
again,’ Gen Buyukanit said in the interview, which was published
yesterday.

His comments were the first by Turkey’s influential military on the
furore sparked by the Armenian genocide resolution and by Ankara’s
threat to stage an incursion into northern Iraq to crush the PKK. The
Turkish parliament is expected this week to approve such an
operation, amid growing public and military pressure on the
government to address forcefully the terrorism issue.

At the weekend, Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, called on
Ankara to use restraint as it contemplated military intervention.

`I urged restraint; urged them to use the mechanisms that are
available,’ Ms Rice said on Saturday, referring to telephone
conversations the day before with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish prime
minister, Abdullah Gul, the country’s president, and Ali Babacan,
foreign minister.

Economic ties between Turkey and the US have already taken a direct
hit from the issue. The Turkish-US business council, which promotes
bilateral economic ties, has cancelled a conference on investing in
Turkey due to be held in New York this week, and the country’s trade
minister has pulled out of a US trip to coincide with the event.

Goal.com, Switzerland
Oct 13 2007

Serbia Held By Armenia In Yerevan

Armenia 0 – 0 Serbia

Serbia’s hopes of Euro 2008 qualification took a potentially killer
blow in Yerevan as Armeia held out for a draw…

zoom – galleria Serbia could not quite make the breakthrough in
Yerevan, the Armenians battling for a point to really complicate the
visitors’ hopes of qualification.

The visitors had the bulk of the possession, invention and, indeed,
chances, but all too often stuttered in the final third, giving
Armenia a welcome, yet useless point as they seek to avoid bottom
spot.

The White Eagles had the best of the early chances, Dejan Stankovic
(pictured) coming close 15 minutes in, with Armenia mostly choosing
to respond via set-pieces in what was a difficult first half for the
visitors.

Berezovsky in the home goal found himself increasingly called into
action as the second period began, Nikola Zigic coming particularly
close as he headed goalwards from a corner just before the hour mark.

Young Zoran Tosic came on for his third international appearance but
couldn’t find the target as Serbia grew increasingly desperate.
Indeed, Armenia perhaps saw the best of the play as a frustrating
match drew to a close.

On the balance of the 90 minutes, the Serbs were the better side, and
certainly had more chances, but composure and finishing all too often
let them down. Armenia, meanwhile, will be pleased with a point as
they pull clear of bottom spot.

Armenia 0 – 0 Serbia

Armenia: Berezovsky; Hovsepyan, Arzumanyan, Dokhoyan, A. Tadevoysan;
Pachajyan, A. Voskanyan (Khachatryan 70), Arakelyan, Karamyan;
Mkhitaryan (A. Hakobyan 82), Melkonyan (Zebelyan 62).

Serbia: Stojkovic; Rukavina, Ivanovic, Stepanov, D. Tosic; Kovacevic,
Kuzmanovic (Z. Tosic 61), Stankovic, Krasic (Jankovic 73); Pantelic
(Lazovic 62), Zigic.

Yellow Cards: Mkhitaryan 23, Arakelyan 37, Stankovic 51, Rukavina 60.

Referee: Stefan Johannesson

The Advertiser (Australia)
October 12, 2007 Friday
State Edition

Bid to appease Turks on ‘genocide’

DESMOND BUTLER, WASHINGTON

THE Bush Administration will look to soothe Turkish anger after a
congressional panel’s approval of a measure describing the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of Armenians early in the last century as
”genocide” .

After the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives
yesterday defied warnings by President George W. Bush and sent the
measure to the full House for a vote, the administration now will try
to pressure Democratic leaders not to schedule a vote, which would be
expected to pass.

Mr Bush and senior officials made last-minute appeals to law-makers
to reject the measure.

”Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in
NATO and in the global war on terror,” Mr Bush said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack later said passage of the
resolution would gravely harm U.S.-Turkish relations and American
interests in Europe and the Middle East.

”The United States recognises the immense suffering of the Armenian
people due to mass killings and forced deportations at the end of the
Ottoman Empire,” Mr McCormack said.

The Turkish government said: ”It is not possible to accept such an
accusation of a crime which was never committed by the Turkish
nation.

”It is blatantly obvious that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
does not have a task or function to re-write history by distorting a
matter which specifically concerns the common history of Turks and
Armenians.”

CBC News, Canada
October 11, 2007 Thursday 2:56 PM GMT

Turkey temporarily recalls its ambassador to Washington following
U.S. genocide vote

Turkey on Thursday asked its ambassador to Washington to return to
Ankara for consultations on a U.S. congressional panel’s decision to
approve a measure recognizing the mass killings of Armenians as
genocide.

Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Levent Bilman said the ambassador
would stay in Turkey for up to 10 days.

"We are not withdrawing our ambassador. We have asked him to come to
Turkey for some consultations," he said.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives’ foreign affairs
committee narrowly voted to pass a resolution describing the 1915
killings of as many as 1.5 million Armenians as a genocide. The
measure will now head to Congress for a vote within weeks.

Turkey denies the First World War-era incident was a genocide, saying
the numbers have been inflated and that those killed were victims of
civil war. Ankara has threatened sanctions against countries that use
the term genocide in connection with the incident.

Hours before Wednesday’s vote, U.S. President George W. Bush urged
lawmakers to reject the measure, warning it could damage relations
with one of its key allies in the Middle East.

Analysts have pointed out that a Turkish backlash against the U.S.
could lead to restrictions on crucial supply routes to Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the closure of the U.S. Air Force base at Incirlik.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul called the measure’s passage
"unacceptable," and the government issued an official statement on
Thursday.

"It is not possible to accept such an accusation of a crime which was
never committed by the Turkish nation," the statement said. "It is
blatantly obvious that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs does
not have a task or function to rewrite history by distorting a matter
which specifically concerns the common history of Turks and
Armenians."

Turkish newspapers decried the U.S. decision, publishing headlines
such as "27 foolish Americans" and "Bill of Hatred."

The U.S. Embassy urged Americans in Turkey to be alert for violent
repercussions.

Armenian President Robert Kocharian welcomed the vote, saying: "We
hope this process will lead to a full recognition by the United
States of America … of the genocide."

Canada passed a parliamentary resolution recognizing the Armenian
genocide in 2004. France and Germany have issued similar resolutions.

October 12, 2007

eu.html

Turkish ire may affect Iraq war

Congressional committee this week said Turkey was guilty of ‘genocide’
against Armenians.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Istanbul, Turkey

Two obsessions in Turkey may appear unrelated – a recent surge in
Kurdish militant attacks and the mass killing of Armenians nearly a
century ago – but they are swiftly combining as a strategic tipping
point in US-Turkey relations that could affect American forces in
Iraq.

Amid widespread calls for revenge after the killing of some 30 Turkish
soldiers and civilians in two weeks by the Kurdistan Workers Party
(PKK) – and the failure of US and Iraqi forces to curb the attacks
from bases in Iraq – the Turkish parliament is expected next week to
authorize cross-border operations into northern Iraq.

Turkish warplanes and artillery are reportedly already targeting PKK
camps, but an incursion could destabilize the one area of Iraq that
has been relatively peaceful since the US invasion in 2003.

And complicating the situation is a US congressional committee’s
approval Wednesday of a resolution calling the 1915 massacres by
Ottoman Turks a "genocide." Turkey called the decision "unacceptable,"
after warning that the vote could jeopardize US access to a military
airbase crucial to resupplying US troops in Iraq.

President Bush said the non-binding resolution "would do great harm to
our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on
terror," echoing a letter from all eight living former secretaries of
state opposing the resolution.

Turkey accuses the US and Iraqi Kurdish forces in northern Iraq of
providing safe haven and military support for an estimated 3,000 PKK
rebels, and not doing enough to stop cross-border attacks. US
commanders and Iraqi Kurdish officials say they are doing all they can
to stamp out PKK activity, but their reach is limited in the remote
mountains along the border.

The US has "been caught between their tactical alliance with the Kurds
in Iraq, and their strategic alliance – at least what it used to be –
with Turkey," says Bulent Aliriza, a Turkey analyst at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"The reality is that the US relies to an incredible extent on the
Iraqi Kurds … and any meaningful action by the Turks would annoy the
Iraqi Kurds and change the balance in Iraq against the US in this
war," says Mr. Aliriza. "The worst thing that could happen, from the
point of view of the [White House] is for the Turks to intervene,
creating an even bigger mess in Iraq."

Analysts say a large incursion is not likely, though domestic pressure
is growing on Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to act
against the PKK. A spike in attacks this spring prompted the top brass
of Turkey’s military – the second largest ground forces of the NATO
alliance, after the US – to call for government approval to cross into
Iraq.

Turkish troops into Iraq?

This week Turkish units have begun deploying along the border, as the
Turkish media speaks of a possible incursion of 15,000 soldiers and
even creation of a buffer zone 10 to 20 miles deep inside Iraq.

But Turkey has been here before, during an estimated 24 previous
cross-border operations against the PKK in the 1980s and 1990s. The
two largest took place in 1995 and 1997, the latter with 50,000
troops, but the PKK remained.

The Turkish military is "very well aware of the pros and cons of a
cross-border operation into northern Iraq, and everybody knows it
wouldn’t be an easy task to step there because you could have some
losses, you could have some terrible results – you never know," says
Metehan Demir, a military specialist in Ankara with the Sabah
newspaper.

"When you go there, you will not only be facing the PKK. You don’t
know what the peshmerga [Iraqi Kurdish militias] will do; you don’t
know how the Americans will contribute to the peshmerga or PKK behind
the scenes," says Mr. Demir. "These are real concerns in the Turkish
capital."

A mechanism created in August 2006 to defuse a crisis and prevent a
Turkish incursion has brought few results.

President Bush appointed retired Gen. Joseph Ralston, a former NATO
supreme allied commander, to be his envoy to counter the PKK. But his
mission has been fraught with frustration and his resignation was
confirmed this week.

General Ralston’s Turkish counterpart was fired several months ago
after making comments critical of the US, and in tough words published
this week, he said anyone who did not help Turkey fight terror was
also guilty.

Effects of US ‘genocide’ bill

"Some people claim the PKK is doing these attacks to pull Turkey into
the northern Iraq swamp, in order to harm Turkey’s relationship with
the US and to isolate Turkey," adds Demir. "If you add an Armenian
genocide bill onto this ongoing turmoil over the PKK attacks, it will
be terrible for Turkish-American relations."

Already much of that damage is being done, though the vote by the
House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday – taken in the presence of
four Armenian survivors of the World War I-era events – mirrors one
passed by a wider margin in 2005 and another in 2000 that were
withdrawn. This time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will
bring the nonbinding resolution to a vote of the full House, perhaps
in mid-November.

Turkish newspapers on Thursday were scathing. The mass-circulation
Hurriyet called it "bill of hatred." The daily Vatan gave this
front-page headline, about those who voted for it: "27 foolish
Americans."

American businessmen in Turkey have also lobbied against the measure,
noting how French market share has tumbled by double digits as high as
70 percent in the year since France passed a bill criminalizing
Armenian genocide denial.

French exports to Turkey have also fallen by $1 to $2 billion in the
past 12 months, by one count, while the value of most other trading
partners expanded. Turkey denies that a systematic genocide of up to
1.5 million Armenians ever took place – a description and figure
accepted by many historians – saying that mass killing was carried out
by both sides.

Weighing the pros and cons

Speaking about "this enormous blot on human history," congressional
committee chairman Tom Lantos (D) of California opened the session
this way: "We have to weigh the desire to express our solidarity with
the Armenian people and to condemn the historic nightmare through the
use of the word ‘genocide,’ against the risk that it could cause young
men and women in the uniform of the United States armed services to
pay an even heavier price [in Iraq and Afghanistan] than they are
currently paying."

Some congressmen said the Turkish warnings of retaliation were a
bluff, with one saying he felt as through a "Turkish sword" was over
his head. "We can’t provide genocide denial as one of the perks of
friendship with the United States," added Rep. Brad Sherman (D) of
California.

But others expressed shock. "This is crazy," said Rep. Dan Burton (R)
of Indiana. "We’re in the middle of two wars and we’ve got troops over
there that are at risk, and we’re talking about kicking the one ally
that’s helping us over there in the face."

Administration officials – and Turkish politicians – pointed out that
70 percent of the US military’s air cargo destined for Iraq transits
through the US air base at Incirlik in eastern Turkey, and 30 percent
of the fuel used by US forces.

"Our most reliable resource of unfettered intelligence that is helping
us in the Middle East comes through Turkey," Rep. David Scott (D) of
Georgia told the committee.

"The Armenian question is plain as day: What was done to them is
wrong. The issue is: What is in the best interest of the national
security of the United States?"

Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: SYMBOLISM AND REALPOLITIK
by J. Peter Pham

The National Interest Online, DC
5752
Oct 10 2007

Amid the complex dynamics of the Horn of Africa, the most significant
national interest at stake for the United States is preventing
Al-Qaeda (or any other like-minded international terrorist network)
from acquiring a new base and opening a new front in their war against
America and its allies. In this respect, Ethiopia is one of America’s
most reliable African counterterrorism partners.

But, last Tuesday, the United States House of Representatives passed
by voice vote and sent to the Senate the Ethiopia Democracy and
Accountability Act of 2007. The bill, sponsored by Congressman Don
Payne (D-NJ) and some 85 colleagues from both sides of the aisle,
declares official U.S. policy to "support the advancement of human
rights, democracy, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the
press, peacekeeping capacity building, and economic development in the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia." It also prohibits, unless
the president makes specific certifications, security assistance to
Ethiopia and entry into the U.S. for Ethiopian officials accused of
involvement in human rights abuses.

In certain districts, large Ethiopian-American communities hostile
to the current government in their native country obviously make
the legislation good electoral politics, but the motivations of the
bill’s sponsors are still largely well-intentioned-both Payne, the
chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, and
the ranking Republican member, Chris Smith of New Jersey, have long
histories of advocacy for the continent. Mass arrests, lethal force
used against civilians and the Ethiopian government’s counterinsurgency
campaign this summer against ethnic Somali rebels all lead one to think
censure may not be such a bad idea. The government of Prime Minister
Meles Zenawi enforced a trade blockade in the eastern region of his
country, exacerbating the already precarious balance of life there;
many of Addis Ababa’s actions have endangered fellow countrymen. Yet,
these humanitarian considerations need to be weighed against other
U.S. interests.

Ethiopia has participated in the State Department-funded
capacity-building East Africa Counterterrorism Initiative (EACTI).

The Terrorist Interdiction Program (TIP), which is designed to identify
terrorists and hinder their movement across borders, is operative
in Ethiopian airports and other international transit points. Last
year, when no one else was willing to deal with the menace of a
rising Islamist movement in Somalia- which included Al-Qaeda members
specially designated by the U.S. government as well as by the United
Nations Security Council-Ethiopian troops preemptively dispersed the
militants. All this is more than can be said for any other country
in the subregion.

Furthermore, Ethiopia has had a long history of cooperating with the
U.S. Except during the Marxist dictatorship that lasted from 1974 to
1991, Ethiopia was a linchpin of America’s anti-Soviet containment
regime along the southern tier of the Middle East. The Kagnew
communications facility, for example, was highly valued by the U.S.

military as part of its global radio system. An Ethiopian contingent
fought alongside U.S. forces in the Korean War (the unit, dubbed the
"Kagnew Battalion," was attached to the 7th Infantry Division and
fought in a number of engagements, including two famous battles at
"Pork Chop Hill"). More recently, Ethiopia pledged 5,000 seasoned
troops to the hybrid UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Sudan’s
Darfur region-the most substantial commitment to date to a mission
that, notwithstanding its international cause celèbre status, has
attracted few volunteers.

While obviously none of this qualifies anyone for an automatic
free pass, it also should not be surprising that the Ethiopian
government would react angrily to the bill’s passage. A statement by
Samuel Assefa, Ethiopia’s Ambassador to the United States, labeled it
"irresponsible legislation" which, if it becomes law, "would undermine
regional stability in the Horn of Africa by jeopardizing vital security
cooperation" between his country and America. The envoy took particular
umbrage to what he perceived as a double standard given that there is
no "Eritrea Democracy and Accountability Act" under consideration:
"The fact is that the entire region faces a serious threat from
Eritrea-a country that the U.S. Department of State is considering
listing as a state sponsor of terrorism, and that has rejected the
core institutions of legal opposition parties and a private press,
officially banning both, and also outlawed worship by minority
religious denominations." Noting that a "recent United Nations report
concluded that Eritrea has armed terrorists in Somalia with weapons
including suicide belts and anti-aircraft missiles," Ambassador Assefa
lamented that "rather than move against the country that denies all
rights and religious freedom to its citizens, and foments instability,"
Congress decided instead to zero in on his country.

While promoting democracy in Ethiopia (and elsewhere) is and ought
to be an objective of U.S. foreign policy-after all, although it is
not without risks and needs to be pursued within the context of a
broader strategy, democratization can counter terrorism in the long
run by providing alternative venues for dissent in closed societies-it
needs to be weighed against our other interests, both immediate and
long-term. In 1985, pursuing the commendable goal of discouraging
nuclear proliferation, Congress passed the Pressler Amendment, which
required the president to certify that Pakistan did not possess a
nuclear weapon as a pre-condition for further U.S. assistance. When,
in 1990, President George W. Bush decided he could no longer make
the certification, the U.S. suspended its aid program to Pakistan,
including military assistance and training. Not only did the cut-off
fail to have the desired effect-Pakistan conducted its first nuclear
tests in 1998 in response to a round of testing by India-but because
of the country’s suspension from the International Military Education
and Training (IMET) program, the U.S. had little or no contact with
an entire generation of rising Pakistani officers until after 9/11,
when it was reinstated. This has only heightened concerns over the
possible successors of President Pervez Musharraf and the retiring
Western-influenced officers of his generation.

This same cost-benefit analysis needs to be applied when dealing with
historical controversies like the Affirmation of the United States
Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution, which comes up for a vote
this week and has more than 226 co-sponsors. It is difficult to argue
with the general thrust of the latter legislation’s determination:
The "Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman
Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly
2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children
were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and
which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500-year presence
of Armenians in their historic homeland." But does this gesture,
meaningful as it may be to Armenian-Americans and Armenians worldwide,
advance U.S. interests? And, if so, which ones and at what cost? (A
bipartisan group of eight former Secretaries of State-Madeleine
Albright, James Baker III, Warren Christopher, Laurence Eagleburger,
Alexander Haig, Jr., Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and George
Schultz-sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warning that the
resolution "could quickly extend beyond symbolic significance" and
"endanger our national security interests in the region, including
our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote
reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.")

While the interests that might be pursued by a large, pluralistic
country like the United States are infinite in number, the resources
which it actually has at its disposal for their pursuit are always
limited. Thus, as Hans Morgenthau repeatedly advocated, a rational
hierarchy must be established among the elements which together
constitute the national interest as well as the resources that
condition the choice of means and ends. This is especially important in
a democratic polity where the populist temptation is to present each
of the various goals-defeating enemies, ensuring stability, opening
markets, encouraging democracy, eliminating poverty and disease,
promoting American culture, etc.-as equally essential, rather than in
any way competitive among themselves. Morgenthau warned in The Purpose
of American Politics that "the very survival of America calls for
a new ordering of its relations with the outside world." That, five
decades later, Congress still indulges in symbolic gestures which,
while not even serving core U.S. national interests, may nonetheless
rattle the delicate balance of what our partners judge to be their
most significant political or other interests, is a reminder of how
much prudence is required to construct a rational, realistic, and,
ultimately, sustainable foreign policy.

J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International
and Public Affairs at James Madison University.

–Boundary_(ID_jB5LlPiiJtElyDVJEl9h4A )–

Armenian Assembly of America
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:

PRESS RELEASE
October 10, 2007
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
E-mail: [email protected]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AFFIRMS ARMENIAN GENOCIDE – MEASURE NOW HEADS
TO FULL HOUSE

Washington, DC – The Armenian Assembly of America today commended
Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee for voting 27 to 21 in
favor of a resolution that affirms the Armenian Genocide as fact. The
measure was approved despite heavy lobbying by the Turkish government,
which has refused to acknowledge the atrocities against the Armenian
people and had threatened the United States government with retribution
if the Congress approved the genocide resolution.

Hours before the Committee vote, President Bush in a video address,
publicly contradicted his earlier acknowledgement of the Armenian
Genocide and urged lawmakers to oppose the resolution. The President’s
last minute attempt to kill the legislation only backfired, and helped
pass the resolution.

"This is a historic day and a critically important step forward on this
issue," said Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director of the Armenian Assembly
of America. "I am grateful for the support of Members of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, who resisted efforts by the Administration to
pressure them into voting a certain way. It is long past time for the
U.S. government to acknowledge and affirm this horrible chapter of
history – the first genocide of the 20th century and a part of history
that we must never forget."

The resolution is non-binding, but represents the first official U.S.
recognition of genocide against the Armenian people – events that are
amply documented by historians and other nations but which the
government of Turkey has denied.

House leaders have not yet scheduled the resolution for a vote, though
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has said that he’d like to have a vote by the
full House before Thanksgiving. The Armenian Assembly will encourage the
House to consider this measure as quickly as possible. In addition, the
Assembly will work with Senate leaders to secure an affirmative vote in
that chamber on legislation supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D-NV) that already has 32 co-sponsors.

Earlier this week, the Assembly called upon House leaders to reject
lobbying pressure by the government of Turkey to derail the resolution.
Some Turkish leaders implied that their government would cut back on
efforts to assist the United States in the global war against terrorism
if the Congress approved the genocide resolution. They also suggested –
against all evidence – that the U.S. economy would suffer if the House
approved the genocide measure.

Established in 1972, the Armenian Assembly of America is the largest
Washington-based nationwide organization promoting public understanding
and awareness of Armenian issues. It is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt
membership organization.

###
NR#2007-119

TURKISH PM CLEARS WAY FOR IRAQ ASSAULT
Ian Traynor, Europe editor, Peter Walker and agencies

The Guardian, UK
Reuters
Oct 9 2007

The coffin of a Turkish soldier is carried from a military helicopter.

The Turkish government will seek parliamentary authorisation for a
possible military operation into northern Iraq to counter separatist
Kurdish guerrillas after a spate of deadly attacks on soldiers and
civilian.

News channels reported the decision to consult parliament was taken
after a three-hour meeting today between prime minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and senior colleagues from his ruling party.

Earlier the prime minister’s spokesman declared: "To put an end to
the terrorist organisation operating in the neighbouring country, the
order has been given to take every kind of measure – legal, economic,
political, including also a cross-border operation if necessary."

Mr Erdogan, who has previously resisted demands from the Turkish
armed forces for permission to cross into Iraqi Kurdistan, has been
under intense pressure in the wake of the deadliest Kurdish attacks
for more than a decade.

A Turkish incursion is fiercely opposed by Washington since it would
immensely complicate the US campaign in Iraq and upset the only stable
part of Iraq: the Kurdish-controlled north.

The Turkish parliament would have to authorise any large-scale
operation into Iraq, but troops could pursue rebels over the border
without prior clearance.

Two Turkish soldiers were killed yesterday in booby trap explosions
laid by guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK) – fighters
classified as terrorists by Ankara, Washington and the European
Union. Those casualties followed the killing of 13 Turkish soldiers
in the south-east of the country on Sunday when PKK forces outgunned
a Turkish unit of 18 men without sustaining any casualties, according
to the Kurds.

Last week, in an ambush also ascribed to the PKK, gunmen sprayed a
bus with automatic fire in the same region, killing 13 civilians,
including a boy of seven.

The Turkish media described the toll from the attacks as the worst
in 12 years in a conflict spanning several decades that has taken
almost 40,000 lives.

Mr Erdogan is known to think little of the invasion option, making the
pragmatic calculation that it would probably fail. Western diplomats
in Ankara agree that an invasion could be counter-productive. The
Turkish military raided Iraqi Kurdistan dozens of times in the 1990s
but were unable to suppress the insurgency.

The prime minister, however, is being challenged by the army command,
which earlier this year demanded his authority to invade. He is also
vulnerable to a mounting public clamour to act because of the upsurge
in guerrilla activity and the heavy casualties.

Hardline Turkish nationalists entered parliament in Ankara after
elections in July and they are also baying for Kurdish blood.

In the wake of the soldiers’ deaths on Sunday, Mr Erdogan signalled a
shift in policy, saying: "Our campaign against terrorism will continue
in a different manner." The Turkish military has declared 27 "security
zones" on the Iraqi and Iranian borders off-limits to civilians,
suggesting to some that it might be gearing up for an invasion.

Officially, Ankara refuses to recognise or deal with the government
of Iraqi Kurdistan, although there have been back-channel attempts
over the past year to engage with Massoud Barzani, the president of
the Iraqi Kurdish region.

Mr Erdogan’s options are also constrained by strong US hostility to an
invasion. While Turkish public opinion has been strongly anti-American
since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, much of the logistical support for
the US troops goes to Iraq via Turkey.

Relations are also under severe strain because of US congressional
moves to brand the 1915 massacres of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as
"genocide".

Mr Erdogan sent aides to Washington yesterday to lobby Congress on
the "genocide" resolution. Ankara is also warning that it could block
the logistical support to the US in Iraq if the resolution is passed.