RUSSIAN ANALYST: U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE’S DECISION IS A SIGNAL FOR TURKEY
Today
March 19 2010
Azerbaijan
Day.Az interview with Director for Communications of the all-Russia
Center for Public Opinion Research, historian and Doctor of Psychology
Olga Kamenchuk.
What is your assessment of the move by the U.S. Congress House
Committee on Foreign Relations to adopt the resolution recognizing
the so-called "Armenian genocide?"
Armenia long sought to have various countries to recognize the
"genocide". Admittedly, they succeeded in some countries. But
everything is increasingly difficult in the U.S. The whole process runs
very hard in the country. One can not link this issue with the way in
which relationship runs between the strategic allies like Washington
and Ankara. The U.S. understands that it is very difficult to implement
various projects in the Middle East without Turkey’s support.
Therefore, the possible adoption of a final decision on the "genocide"
will complicate the relations between Ankara and Washington. It must
be borne in mind that, on one hand, the Armenian lobby has significant
pressure on the U.S. government, on the other hand, Barack Obama once
openly supported the project of "genocide" in the past.
However, here it is worth noting that the decision in the United
States is made not by one person. The vote in Congress and the Senate
is made in a batch mode. Thus, if a senator or congressman once voted
in favor of a project, it does not mean that he would support it in
the future. So, the question is still open.
This decision by the Committee of Congress may be a kind of signal
by Americans for Turks, since the U.S. is very careful in making such
decisions. The final decision on the "genocide" would be a very serious
step for Washington, because in this case it would endanger Americans’
position in Turkey.
In your opinion, will the Congress adopt this resolution finally?
Sooner or later this issue will continue to emerge at various levels
of government and parliament in the United States. Much will depend
on what shape relations between Turkey and the U.S. will take. The
relations between the two countries have not been unequivocal lately.
We can recall attitude of Ankara and Washington on the Kurdish issue
in Iraq. Disagreements cooled their relations, but later the question
seemed to be resolved. I do not exclude that issue of "genocide"
will be resolved in favor of Armenians in the United States in
distant future.
Do you think, facing a choice between adoption of the resolution
and relations with Turkey, the U.S. preferred the first one harming
political, economic and also military ties with Turkey?
Americans can sometimes do irrelevant things in respect of different
states. It puts much on stake without thinking not worrying about the
consequences. Let’s recall the history of missile defense in Eastern
Europe. The U.S. desire to deploy radar in the Czech Republic and
Poland posed very big problems.
However, all of a sudden the U.S. wanted to deploy these radars
in other countries. Of course, allies are very important for the
U.S. and Turkey is the key state in the region. Islamic factor and
military cooperation are also involved here. However, they can afford
sophisticated solutions to complex issues. There is much influence
exerted on the U.S. government. It is hard to do this, but the country
is under pressure from all sides. So, the resolution can be adopted
in distant future.
It is possible that Moscow benefited from this situation most of all
boosting relations with Turkey who is offended at the U.S. …
I think the main point is not cooperation with the United States or
Russia. The situation is much more complicated. Final and serious
quarrel are beneficial neither to Washington nor Ankara. Both Turkey
and Russia are aware of importance of bilateral cooperation. Possibly,
Turkey will begin a rapprochement with Russia as an exemplary measure,
in order to spite the United States. The U.S. will be nervous about
it, because it wants Ankara to remain in its area of influence.
However, I do not think that this will lead to fundamental change in
the balance of forces in the region.
As a doctor of psychology, can you explain the reasons why recognition
of "Armenian Genocide" is so important to the neighboring country? Is
this recognition really part of the recognition of national identity,
or this is a fixed idea of individuals in the government?
In any ethnic conflict some painful aspects later become a symbol of
the nation, then pass on generations until they are solved. Speaking
of conflict science as part of psychology, I can say that discussions
over such problems are always painful, but it is very necessary to
eventually solve the problem.
The question of "genocide" is very important for a country like
Armenia, but in this case, it is often politicized and used by
politicians.
H. Hamidov
tml