INTERVIEW: ‘US-TURKISH RELATIONS SHOULD NOT REMAIN HOSTAGE TO ARMENIAN ISSUE’
Source: Todays Zaman
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
April 30 2007
[MONDAY TALK]
* ‘Turkey should not relax thinking that April 24 is over. Actually
Turkey should intensify its efforts. The resolution has the potential
to come to the [US] General Assembly, and if it does it is likely to
pass. If it comes up for a general vote then unfortunately, with the
current power distribution in the House of Representatives, for the
first time there is a serious danger that it may pass’
If the pending "Armenian genocide resolution" passes at the US
Congress, there will be repercussions, said Þuhnaz Yýlmaz, an expert
on US-Turkish relations.
"For instance, when the US had an arms embargo on Turkey from 1975 to
1978, Turkey responded by closing some of the [US] bases [in Turkey].
It is not going to be the end of Turkish-US relations, but it is
going to put the relations through a rather difficult phase," said
Yýlmaz, who is an assistant professor of international relations at
Koc University, Ýstanbul.
However according to Yýlmaz one crucial strategy for the Turkish
government is not only to deal with the Armenian diaspora, which is
more radical, but also try to normalize and enhance relations with
Armenia, because Armenians living in Armenia have more reasons to
improve relations with Turkey.
Traditionally each year on April 24 US presidents issue a declaration
commemorating the killings of Armenians in 1915, at the end of the
Ottoman Empire. This year President George W. Bush’s speech carried
added importance because of the resolution at Congress.
Meanwhile the Turkish Foreign Ministry published advertisements in
four major US newspapers; The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
The Washington Times and Politico. The advertisement says that Turkey
has given assurances for the opening of all archives and expects the
same from other parties, i.e. Armenia.
* For ‘Monday Talk’ Yýlmaz answered our questions on the Armenian
issue that is now affecting Turkish-US relations more than ever before.
– On this April 24 President Bush again commemorated the Armenian
killings in 1915, but he did not use the term ‘genocide.’ Was he
choosing his words carefully?
It has become a tradition for US presidents to make a speech on April
24 commemorating the killings of the Armenians in 1915, but in order
to strike a delicate balance they have always referred to "massacres"
in this period but refrained using the term "genocide." I think
Bush’s speech was in line with that tradition. I think the Armenian
community in the US was also predicting this, although they have
constantly pressured for the use of the term genocide, but they were
also expecting a precise reference to the issue of massacres, which
Bush did to a certain extent. On the Turkish side, the expectation
was of course avoiding the usage of the term genocide. One issue
perhaps the Armenian community considered as a success this time was
in President Bush’s speech, while he mentioned the necessity of a
joint effort to review the history [of the events], he did not make a
direct reference to the formation of a joint commission. The Turkish
side had started a campaign in leading US newspapers like The New
York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times favoring
the formation of a joint history commission to study this period from
a historical perspective in an effort to depoliticize the issue. In
the past there has been significant support from the US side for this
issue, this time Bush did not make a direct reference to it.
– Why do you think he avoided the issue?
In a way to balance the sensitivities of both sides. While he didn’t
use a direct reference, indirectly he mentioned that there is a need
for a joint understanding of history. On the US side it is a delicate
balance. On the one hand relations with Turkey are at stake, because
this is an extremely sensitive issue and all at the executive level
have been aware of this. That’s why, despite enormous pressure from the
Armenian lobby, Bush avoided using the term genocide. At the same time
they try to use terms in reference to the massacres of the people,
try to, in a way, appease the Armenian lobby. His speech reflected
this delicate balance, trying not to offend either side too much and
trying to address the sensitivities.
– Do you think Turkey has been doing enough to present its point of
view? You’ve mentioned the newspapers adverts…
I think it was a good strategy. It will not be enough. Turkey has
not done enough to voice its position. So far mainly the Armenian
side has been extremely active in the US, bringing the issue to the
public platform, lobbying particularly strongly since the 1970s
onwards, but it goes all the way back to the 1927, for instance,
when the Armenian lobby was effective in blocking the ratification
of the Turkish-US Treaty of Lausanne. The Armenian diaspora in the
US has been very active whereas on the Turkish side there has been a
significant neglect of the issue. In that respect this push for a joint
commission is definitely a very good step. So far all the information
regarding the issue has been one-sided and the whole discourse was
determined by the Armenians. The Turkish government has to do its share
in terms of opening the archives, facilitating this kind of dialogue
and interaction. One crucial strategy for the Turkish government is
not only to deal with the Armenian diaspora, which is more radical,
but also try to normalize and enhance relations with Armenia.
– So you think Turkey should look at the Armenian lobby in the US
differently than the relations with Armenia?
Exactly, because they are two different forces regarding the Armenian
issue. On the one hand there is the well-established diaspora in
the US which has the recognition of the so-called genocide as the
main item on their agenda, and there are the Armenians in Armenia,
who have much more practical concerns, like their economic interests,
strategic interests, and the recognition of the so-called genocide is
just one of their concerns. They have a lot to benefit from improving
relations with Turkey. There is also one more thing Turkey needs to
understand, and it is not simply related only to the Armenian issue;
effective lobbying does matter. The Turkish lobby has been much less
effective than the Armenian lobby.
– There is a pending ‘Armenian genocide resolution’ at the US
Congress. It has a lot of supporters. How do you think the US lawmakers
will decide?
After the Congressional elections the situation has become
quite delicate since Nancy Pelosi became the leader of the
House of Representatives. She comes from California with a strong
Armenian-American constituency. The Armenian lobby wanted to bring
the resolution to a vote in the General Assembly even before April
24. This did not work out. This was not only related to the demands
from the Administration, but also was also related to the dynamics
of the House of Representatives. This does not mean that this might
not come to the General Assembly for discussion. So far Pelosi’s
position has been that this will probably be one of the critical
issues of 2008. The issue will be on the table according to the
calendar of the Democratic side, they are in a way waiting for the
election process to be over in Turkey, and it can also be a tool used
effectively before or after the elections in the US. In the meantime,
I think, we’ll see a war of lobbies and strategies on both sides. In
this period Turkey should not relax, thinking that April 24 is over.
Instead Turkey should intensify its efforts. The resolution has the
potential to come to the General Assembly, and if it does it is likely
to pass. It has fewer supporters in the Senate than in the house,
but if it comes up for a general vote then unfortunately with the
current power distribution in the House of Representatives, for the
first time there is a serious danger that it may pass.
– How have such resolutions’ been prevented before?
They were prevented by the Administration because it is never in the
interest of the State Department or an existing government in power
to pass such a resolution at the expense of relations with Turkey.
While the presidency is in the hands of the Republicans, both House
and Senate are controlled by Democrats. They would not necessarily be
concerned about hindering the power of the Republicans in that respect.
– If the resolution passes, could it lead to a crisis in relations
between Turkey and the US?
It would certainly have a detrimental impact. It does not have any
binding power, but symbolically it is very important. It is mainly
recognition of the term genocide. Nevertheless it is symbolically
important given the fact that relations are going through a relatively
difficult period because of the situation in Iraq.
– What do you think about both countries’ approach to the Iraqi
situation in regards to the relations with each other, the US and
Turkey that is?
In terms of the Iraqi issue there are issues of convergence and
divergence. It is in the interest of both countries to have a stable
and democratic Iraq. But the country is in civil war. Wining a war was
relatively easy in Iraq, but winning the peace has not been and it has
not been accomplished yet. Turkey, as a neighbor of Iraq, has been
directly affected by developments there. That’s been a significant
concern. Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorist activities in
northern Iraq have in particular been a major cause of concern for
Turkey. Both the Kurdish administration and the Americans have not
been doing enough to fight the PKK.
– Do you think Turkey would not allow the passage of US supplies to
Iraq if the ‘genocide’ resolution passes?
There are going to be some repercussions. For instance, when the US
had an arms embargo on Turkey from 1975 to 1978, Turkey responded
by closing some of the [US] bases [in Turkey]. It is not going to be
the end of Turkish-US relations, but it is going to put the relations
through a rather difficult pace. Turkish-US relations should not remain
hostage to the Armenian issue. Probably that’s what the Armenian lobby
wants. But we should not neglect that this is also an important issue
for the Turkish side. Turkey should be persistent in its lobbying
efforts, not only on the evening before April 24, but also with an
ongoing effort to address the root causes of the issue behind the
forming of this commission, debating the issue more and enhancing ties
with Armenia. So we need a more comprehensive and proactive approach.
– Do you think Turkey should try more to talk directly with Nancy
Pelosi?
There has been an attempt, but she avoided speaking with the
Turkish officials. For the time being the Turkish officials could
use other effective channels. For instance Nancy Pelosi is very much
in touch with the Italian-American community. They are an effective
channel, given Turkey’s good relations with Italy. I mean you can
get creative about this. She (Pelosi) is a key figure. There are
different ways of approaching her. For example the Armenian lobby
works in different ways. The Armenian National Committee of America
(ANCA) distributes congressional report cards for all congressmen and
senators to constituents during each electoral cycle, showing what
their positions are on the Armenian issue and other matters. They
follow it closely. They have meetings with congressmen. They use their
congressional caucus effectively. It is not focused on one person or
one channel. So far Turkey has not been that effective. In the last
couple of years the Armenian lobby has increased its effectiveness
through its intense collaboration with the Greek and Kurdish lobbies.
Whenever there is a [pro] Armenian resolution, you often see the
signatures of the Greek and Kurdish lobbies under it. Of course Turkey
has been getting significant support from the Jewish lobby. We also
need an effective Turkish lobby.
– Anything you would like to add?
Speaking in general about Turkish-US relations, the great strategist
and statesman [Zbigniew] Brzezinski described the Eurasia land mass
as a "grand chessboard." In this chessboard there are a lot of areas
open to cooperation between Turkey and the US. Even though relations
went through problematic periods throughout history — like the 1964
Johnson letter, 1975-1978 arms embargo and more recently the crisis
over the March 1 resolution [of the Turkish Parliament, to not allow
US use of bases in Turkey for the invasion of Iraq] in 2003 — despite
all these low points, the relations have maintained their importance.
————– * Who is Þuhnaz Yýlmaz?
She is an assistant professor of international relations at Koc
University, Ýstanbul. She received her M.A. and Ph.D. in near Eastern
studies at Princeton University, specializing in international
affairs and the Middle East. She conducted her post-doctoral studies
at Harvard University working on a project on the role of third-party
mediation in conflict resolution focusing particularly on the US role
in Turkish-Greek relations. Her areas of interest and expertise include
foreign policy analysis, Turkish foreign policy, Turkish-US relations,
Eurasian politics, Mediterranean cooperation and security, European
Union foreign and security policy and international development. She
has been published in journals such as ‘Middle Eastern Studies,’
‘Insight Turkey,’ ‘O Mundo em Portugues’ (the world in Portuguese),
‘World Today,’ ‘Middle East Journal’ and ‘Political Science Quarterly’
–Boundary_(ID_IPNQ+b+st5RjC5xRAjSXog) —