U.S. HOUSE RESOLUTION ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AN "HISTORICAL" MISTAKE?

RIA Novosti
Oct 15 2007
Russia

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Maria Appakova) – This week the
Turkish parliament will have to decide whether or not its government
should approve a cross-border military operation to chase separatist
Kurdish rebels who operate from bases in northern Iraq. The Turkish
parliament will most likely vote in favor of the operation.

The decision will be made at a time when Turkey’s relations with the
United States are worsening. On October 10, the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs passed a measure calling the massacre of Armenians
in World War I by Ottoman Turks genocide by a 27-21 margin.

This measure will prevent Washington, at least in the short term,
from stopping Ankara’s attempt to unleash one more conflict in the
Middle East.

Discussions of Turkey’s military operation in Iraq and the vote in
U.S. Congress on the Armenian genocide coincided in time, but it could
just be a coincidence. The two issues have been on the respective
agendas for a long time, and the decisions were long due.

Turkey’s parliament is ready to act because the military arm of
the Kurdistan Workers Party attacked the Turkish military again,
killing 13.

The Justice and Development Party, which won the summer elections
in Turkey, cannot disappoint its voters by leaving the matter
unattended. This would play into the hands of its political rivals,
primarily the military, who were against selecting the country’s
president from among members of the party.

The current Turkish leadership should avoid quarrelling with the
military, especially because it intends to carry out political reforms
in the country.

Likewise, the approval of the measure on Armenian genocide in the
U.S was a political decision made before the upcoming elections. The
Democrats, who initiated the measure, needed a bold political move, as
well as the support of the numerous and influential Armenian diaspora.

Although it is true that Armenians were massacred in 1915, we must
admit that current decisions on the genocide and infringements on the
rights of nations were made exclusively for political reasons. The
issues of human rights and freedom of religion have become win-win
topics.

All countries are doing this, but Washington is the loudest advocate
of political morals and human rights. Unfortunately, its actions do
not always support its words, as exemplified by disputes over the
Armenian genocide resolution.

President George W. Bush said several hours before the voting:
"Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally
in NATO and in the global war on terror." He said that Turkey is a
moderately Muslim country and a NATO member crucial for the transit
of U.S. shipments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Did he mean that his administration would not protest against such
a resolution if it were passed about a non-moderate Islamic country
that is not an ally-and especially not a strategic ally-of the
United States?

Bush has said more than once that genocide is a subject for historians,
not lawmakers. But what about Serbia, Iraq and Sudan, where the issue
was-and still is, in the case of Sudan-not yet decided by historians?

His press service has expressed surprise that lawmakers concern
themselves with history when there are so many current acute problems
awaiting solution. This brings to mind what House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to serve as Speaker of the U.S. House
of Representatives, has said on the issue of Armenian genocide.

Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference that congressional
resolutions on Armenian genocide have been put off, with various
justifications, over the past 20 years.

There is never a good time to acknowledge that genocide has taken
place, Pelosi added, whether in the distant past or the present.

Turkey is vital for U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East
and the Black Sea region. Therefore it is believed that the House’s
resolution has harmed U.S. foreign policy interests.

The planned Turkish operation in Iraq is not the most harmful aspect of
the situation, but rather Turkey’s possible refusal to allow American
military planes to fly in its air space and use the Turkish air force
base. Overall, the honest decision made by the U.S. House may curtail
bilateral military relations.

The United States and Turkey will not sever relations, of course,
but the resolution may prevent Washington from convincing Turkey to
abandon its plans of a cross-border military operation in Iraq.

Yet the resolution is not the only stumbling block in bilateral
relations. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that
Ankara does not need anyone to tell it what to do in Iraq, because
the United States did not ask anyone’s advice when it deployed its
troops there in 2003.

The Turkish government has asked parliament for a 12-month permit to
launch a military operation in Iraq. This means that it can send its
troops to Iraq any time within a year, or not at all, using the permit
to put pressure on Washington, Baghdad and leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Also, in late September Turkey and Iraq signed an agreement on
cooperation in the war on terror and agreed to remove from its text the
clause about the "right of hot pursuit." If Ankara wants to maintain
good relations with Baghdad, it should give Iraq a chance to fulfill
the agreement before taking such drastic decisions.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.