The Economist
March 5 2010
The Armenian genocide: Past imperfect, present tense
Congress reconsiders America’s official position on the Armenian genocide
Mar 5th 2010 | NEW YORK | From The Economist online
TWO questions faced an American congressional panel on Thursday March
5th as it considered the mass killings of Armenians during and after
the first world war by forces of the Ottoman Empire. First, was it
genocide? The historical debate is as hot, and unsettled, as ever.
Armenians continue to insist that it was the first genocide of the
twentieth century, while Turks call the killings merely part of the
chaos of the break-up of empire.
But the second question on the minds of congressmen in the Foreign
Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives was more urgent.
What is more important, fidelity to history or concern for the
present? The vote took place as warming relations between Turkey and
Armenia have cooled again and those between Turkey and America are
under increasing strain over Iran, Israel and other affairs in the
region. Turkish diplomats and politicians gave warning before the vote
that the consequences would be felt across the range of issues of
shared concern to the two countries. In the end the panel narrowly
decided against pragmatism and chose to set straight the historical
records. A resolution recognising the killings as genocide was sent to
the House by a vote of 23 to 22.
When the same House committee passed a `genocide’ resolution in 2007
the White House urged that the vote be scrapped. But this year, it had
come with a twist; Barack Obama had promised during his election
campaign to recognise the event as genocide. But before the vote his
advisers said that while he acknowledges a genocide personally, he
urged unsuccessfully that official interpretation be left to the
parties involved. Congress is far more sensitive to lobbying than the
president and to small but highly motivated groups of voters.
Lobbyists working for both Armenians and Turks had been active before
the vote and Armenians are concentrated in several Californian
districts.
But no fashioner of foreign policy’among whom the president is by far
the most important’can ignore the strategic importance of Turkey. It
is a vital American ally and has the second-biggest army in NATO. The
country is home to an important American air base and is a crucial
supply route for America’s forces in Iraq. Relations were difficult
even before the beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003. The mildly
Islamist government denied the Americans the ability to open a second
front in Iraq through Turkey. Turkey’s relationship with Israel has
deteriorated too. Israel’s two recent wars, in Lebanon and Gaza, have
outraged Turkish public opinion. Mr Obama’s more even-handed approach
to the Israel-Palestine conflict has improved America’s reputation in
Turkey, but not by much.
Turkey itself is caught between forces that make the Armenia issue
potentially dangerous. The country’s secular, Western-oriented
politicians, among others, have been discouraged by the strict terms
offered by the European Union for eventual Turkish membership. In part
as a result there has been a gradual realignment in Turkish foreign
policy towards its more immediate neighbours. Turkey’s government
seeks peaceful relations with countries at its borders, which has
meant some cosying up to Iran, despite the fact that most of Turkey’s
NATO allies are pushing for more sanctions against the Islamic
republic over its alleged efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
The vote comes at a sensitive time, too, for Turkey’s relations with
Armenia. The pair have been at odds since Turkey closed the border in
1993, during Armenia’s war with Turkey’s ethnic cousins in Azerbaijan.
Last year, protocols were agreed that foresaw an establishment of
diplomatic relations and an opening of the border. But Armenia’s
highest court then declared that the protocols were in line with
Armenia’s constitutionally mandated policy that foreign affairs
conform to the Armenian view of the genocide. Turkey responded with
fury and the protocols were endangered. The American vote will anger
Turkey further and perhaps make it even more inclined to turn away
from Europe, America and Armenia in favour of its Islamic neighbours.
One hope is that Turkish anger will subside if, as happened in 2007,
the House leadership stops the resolution from reaching a full vote.
It may do so again. Turkey recalled its ambassador after Thursday’s
vote just as in 2007. The Turkish government, in a spat with the
country’s nationalist army, may play the foreign-insult card to
bolster its domestic strength. But ultimately the Turks are unlikely
to weaken their relationship with America lightly.
ates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15640909&source =features_box_main