THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: ADOPTING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION, U.S. CONGRESS INSULTS FEELINGS OF TURKEY
PanARMENIAN.Net
10.03.2010 14:25 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ A resolution approved by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee last week, in recognizing the Armenian Genocide, asks the
Obama administration to endorse history at the risk of insulting a
needed ally. Given Turkey’s strategic importance, that will be hard to
do, John Hughes wrote in his article in The Christian Science Monitor.
"The passing of House Resolution 252 introduces a new dynamic into
the State Department’s hopes for "normalization" of relations between
Armenia and Turkey. The Armenian Genocide is marked as beginning
April 24, 1915. On the 94th anniversary last year, President Obama
decried the "great atrocities" – but defied his own campaign promise
by following the precedent of other modern presidents and stopping
short of using the word "genocide."
"HR 252 calls on the president to use the annual April 24 message
"to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation
of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history
of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide."
The fallout over the nonbinding resolution – Turkey withdrew its US
ambassador, and its prime minister called the resolution "a comedy" –
makes it most unlikely that it will either pass the full Congress or
nudge President Obama to call a historical fact by its proper name
next month. Indeed, the Obama administration urged the committee
not to pass the measure. The letdown will further erode the trust
of Armenians to whom he has become davatchan – a traitor," in The
Christian Science Monitor wrote.
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has vowed to stop the resolution
where it stands. Mrs. Clinton was the chief diplomat behind a
three-country effort shared by Russia and Switzerland last October that
resulted in Turkey and Armenia agreeing to try to agree, and follow
a set of "protocols" intended to work out their deep differences.
The protocols meant to be a roadmap have led nowhere, as neither
country has ratified them. Armenia has even gone so far as to amend its
legislation on international treaties, allowing for "the suspension
or termination of agreements signed by Armenia before their entry
into force." Creating a pre-emptive exit strategy from cooperation
hardly portends kumbayah in the Caucasus.
Turkey (which closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in support of
Muslim cousin Azerbaijan in its war over the historically Armenian
enclave of Nagorno Karabakh) was the first to drag down the process,
by insisting that rapprochement cannot carry on unless Armenia returns
land it reclaimed from Azerbaijan. Turkey’s insistence on projecting
Karabakh into the discussion brings to question whether protocol
negotiators were literally on the same page.
The drafted, debated, signed-and-sent-to-parliaments document makes no
reference to the Karabakh issue. Armenians saw Turkey’s introduction
of this controversy into the protocol talks (after they were signed)
as unacceptable. Washington diplomats – mindful of the delicate and
protracted negotiations over Karabakh – encouraged Turkey to seek
harmony with Armenia "without preconditions" – or in this case,
"postconditions," the author concluded.