Armenian debacle
Washingtom Times
October 16, 2007
By Tulin Daloglu – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she believes that
"the biggest ethical challenge facing our country is the war in Iraq."
Therefore, she must believe that passing a resolution declaring the
mass killings of Armenians at the end of World War I a genocide will
restore America’s moral authority. Rep. Tom Lantos, California
Democrat, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, "I
feel that I have a tremendous opportunity as a survivor of the
Holocaust to bring a moral dimension to our foreign policy." The
resolution passed last week by a 27"21 vote.
However, while Mr. Lantos speaks so forcefully about the resolution
now, he has opposed similar measures in the past, arguing that what
happened to Armenians is not technically a genocide. In fact, he
argued this right up until Turkey refused to give the United States a
northern front to invade Iraq in 2003. According to congressional
sources, Mrs. Pelosi urged Mr. Lantos to support the resolution, or
else risk his chairmanship. In addition, Mr. Lantos was seriously
troubled when the Turkish government invited the newly elected Hamas
leadership of the Palestinian Authority to Ankara, and by what appears
to be Turkey’s strengthening relationship with Iran.
A delegation of Turkish Parliament members visiting Washington was
disappointed by the vote. "What bothered me was that those [U.S.
representatives] who supported the Turkish side, 21 of them said loud
and clear that the events of 1915 amounted to genocide," said Gunduz
Aktan, a former ambassador and member of the Turkish Parliament from
the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). "Despite this, because of
Turkey’s strategic importance, because of the national interest of the
U.S., they are voting no. This was unbearable." Turks share Mr.
Aktan’s opinion. But they should also know who lobbies on Turkey’s
behalf. Former House Minority leader Richard Gephardt, hired by the
Justice and Development Party (AKP) government to lobby for Turkey,
actively worked in support of such resolutions in the past. When a
last-minute intervention by President Bill Clinton stopped a similar
resolution before a vote in 2000, Mr. Gephardt wrote to the then-House
Speaker Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, to tell him that he was
"committed to obtaining official U.S. government recognition of the
Armenian genocide."
Although Egemen Bagis, one of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s
chief foreign policy advisers, said that Turkey has done everything in
its power to avert the resolution’s passage, it also made many
mistakes. Not only did the Turkish government hire Mr. Gephardt, but
it also placed too much stock in the perception that Turkey’s
geographically strategic position would ensure such a measure’s
defeat.
Evidently, President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
Defense Secretary Robert Gates did all they could to try to defeat the
bill in committee. Now Turkey must face this failure – it lost the
propaganda war on this issue long ago. In fact, not only did the
Turkish government fail, but Turkish Americans who did not take this
issue as seriously as the Armenian Americans failed as well.
Mrs. Pelosi may think that a House resolution will finally close the
issue. But Turks are convinced that it will begin a new chapter and
spur reparations claims. U.S. officials advise Turkey to deal with the
issue as plain historical fact. That’s easily said. But Turks wonder
what the connection is – and why the United States has done nothing to
prevent the Kurdish separatist PKK from gaining strength in northern
Iraq and increasing its attacks on Turkey. They are convinced that
America wants to enforce the Treaty of Sevres which would allow Kurds
and Armenians to lay claim to Turkish land.
Many in the United States believe the Kurds have a legitimate right to
their own state. Recently the Senate passed a resolution calling the
partition of Iraq into three self-governing regions for Shiites,
Sunnis and Kurds. Turks are worried that such a plan will lead some of
its Kurdish citizens to seek independence as well. However, Sevres did
not promise Kurds an independent state; it promised "the formation of
an autonomous region which would have the right to elect for complete
independence one year after the formation of the autonomous area."
David McDowell, in "A Modern History of the Kurds, " explains that
"[t]he terms were flawed"by the failure to demarcate Kurdistan’s
boundary with Armenia. This was foreseeably bound to outrage either
the Kurds or the Armenians, as President Wilson’s pro-Armenian
proposed boundary accompanying the treaty clearly showed." Wilson set
the Armenian borders to include Kurdish areas of Turkey, but he was
unable to finalize them.
Turks look at their history and wonder why the president refuses to
act against a Kurdish terrorist organization attacking them from
northern Iraq, and why a Democratic Congress is considering an act
that happened nearly 100 years ago. Ultimately, what everyone needs to
do is move on – but the war in Iraq and the possibility of its breakup
seem to haunt the present.
Tulin Daloglu is a freelance writer.
Source: ITORIAL/110160008