Today’s Zaman
Omer Taspinar
The coming storm with Washington
Last year, shortly after the US Congress decided at the last minute
not to push forward with the Armenian genocide recognition I wrote in
this column that this was a "pyrrhic victory" for Turkey. There was
indeed no reason to celebrate.
Of course, I had no idea that the next US president would be a firm
supporter of recognizing the genocide. Instead, my gloomy article had
much more to do with the fact no one in Washington — except those
with a vested financial or political interest to the Turkish
government — believed Turkey’s side of the story. Whether "the events
of 1915" amounted to "genocide" was not even debated in America.
So why didn’t the US Congress pass the resolution? Charles
Krauthammer, a Washington columnist, summarized it best last year in
his Washington Post column. With characteristic poignancy, he wrote:
"There are three relevant questions concerning the Armenian
genocide. (a) Did it happen? (b) Should the House of Representatives
be expressing itself on this now? (c) Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s
determination to bring this to a vote, knowing that it risked
provoking Turkey into withdrawing crucial assistance to American
soldiers in Iraq, a conscious or unconscious attempt to sabotage the
US war effort?"
And here is how Krauthammer answered these questions: "(a) Yes,
unequivocally. (b) No, unequivocally. (c) God only knows." He went on:
"That between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians were brutally and
systematically massacred starting in 1915 in a deliberate genocidal
campaign is a matter of simple historical record. If you really want
to deepen and broaden awareness of that historical record, you should
support the establishment of the Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial
in Washington. But to pass a declarative resolution in the House of
Representatives in the middle of a war in which we are inordinately
dependent on Turkey would be the height of irresponsibility."
Now do you understand why last year was a pyrrhic victory? The reason
Ankara won the battle was because important newspapers such as The
Washington Post and The New York Times picked up the "genocide" story
and humiliated the House of Representatives with columns and
editorials such as the one written by Krauthammer. Yet, this was not a
sight any believer in Turkey’s version enjoyed. Yes, these articles
opposed the Armenian resolution. But none of them believed Turkey’s
version of history about "the events of 1915."
Turkey won an important battle but ended up losing the war. Just like
Krauthammer’s, most of these articles argued that what happened in
1915 was genocide. But Turkey was geo-strategically too important an
ally to offend in the middle of mayhem in the Middle East. In other
words, the opposition to the genocide resolution had nothing to do
with the sudden discovery of new historical facts proving correct the
Turkish version of history. The discussion was only about Turkey’s
geo-strategic importance and bad timing.
This year we will probably witness the same charade with more
intensity. President-elect Barack Obama, Vice President-elect Joe
Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and, of course, a large majority of Congress are all
in favor of Armenian genocide recognition. The first critical test
will be the US president’s annual letter of April 24, which
traditionally defines what happened to Ottoman Armenians as
"massacres." Will this year’s letter refer to "genocide"?
This first and very critical test in Turkish-American relations comes
within the early months of the Obama administration. There are only
four months between the inauguration in late January and April 24. And
Obama’s presidential agenda will be overloaded with the global
financial crisis and all the very crucial foreign policy issues,
ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan and Iran to a possible India-Pakistan
war. Relations with Turkey will not be an urgent issue.
In such a busy agenda, it is also highly unlikely that the American
media will pick up the story of a potential crisis with Turkey. This
is why even a pyrrhic victory may not be in the cards this time. There
is still a chance Obama will opt for realism in relations with Turkey.
But this means he will have to break his campaign promises. Surely,
this will not be a first for a politician. But what if Obama is really
committed to "change"? Soon, perhaps too soon, we will know.
15 December 2008, Monday
ay.do?haberno=161240