Tweet
"ARMENIAN GENOCIDE" BILL STRAINS US TIES
translated from Turkish
Hurriyet, Turkey
March 31 2007
Two meetings with the theme of Turkish-US relations took place in
Washington this week. The first was a regular meeting of the Turkish
American Council. The second was a meeting of the Turkish American
Advisory Council.
I only attended the latter but I heard the repercussions of the
former. Inevitably, the meetings took place in the shadow of the
"Armenian Genocide" bill occupying the House of Representatives agenda.
It is not possible at this stage to say that the House is going to
approve the bill before 24 April. But, provided the bill gets referred
to the General Assembly it seems likely that it will get passed with a
majority vote. Aiming to prevent the vote from being taken the White
House and the State Department are strongly emphasizing that a House
ruling would sever vital logistic support going to the American forces
in Iraq via Turkey.
Be that as it may, it is not going to be easy to stave off the pressure
of domestic policy requirements. Even if the administration does use
its muscle to delay the vote we are going to face the same problem
again next year. We must take into consideration that the US President
is going to issue a message on 24 April like he does every year. True,
the message never contains the word "genocide" but the allegations
we reject are included in the most overblown fashion.
In the meantime, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has accepted a
ruling condemning Hrant Dinks' murder, calling for Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code to be scrapped, and demanding the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations. It is not clear just when this ruling is
going to be passed on to the Senate Council. The text of the ruling
does include the word "genocide" in a roundabout way.
It is stated that Hrant Dink referred to the Armenian massacre as
"genocide." Of course, we cannot accept even the claim of "massacre."
But is it not contradictory to give the impression that by focusing
on the word "genocide" other accusations are acknowledged? I think
that what is needed is to fine tune reactions by assessing all these
elements.
As for Iraq; US observers are stating that Washington will not be able
to deny Turkey its right as a sovereign state to intervene in northern
Iraq against the PKK, but they say that if this course of action is
taken then Turkey will get bogged down like the United States has
become and that the military option will bring more harm than benefits.
No doubt this is realistic thinking. While it is easy to enter Iraq,
getting out again is clearly very difficult. Furthermore, Turkey has
far more vulnerabilities than the United States.
In the matter of measures against the PKK, it is clear that Gen (ret)
Edip Baser's work is paying off to some degree. Some jointly decided
measures are not being announced. These are probably to do with the
exchange of intelligence information and perhaps to do with some
intelligence activities.
A measure of success has been achieved in the matter of severing
financial aid to the PKK. Even if the northern Iraqi leaders are not
going for an operation against the PKK they are reportedly saying
that they will not tolerate its actions against Turkey. Furthermore,
Makhmur camp has been cleared of weapons under UN observation and
all passage into and out of the camp is being checked.
There are still 12,000 people in the camp including 6,000 minors. It
seems inevitable that they will become PKK terrorists provided they
stay in northern Iraq. Solutions must be looked into to enable these
children in particular to return to Turkey.
Finally, it can be said that Turkish-US relations are going to continue
along their turbulent course, but in contrast to this both sides are
aware of their common interests. The problems in our vast region are
not limited to Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Israeli-Palestine.
In both Afghanistan and Pakistan developments could take place that
could upset the balances. The one country that can help us most with
the Cyprus issue given the current conditions is the United States.
It is for these reasons that whatever differences in opinion we may
have, Turkey and the United States must adopt a line that not only
accepts one another's policies but also makes room for them, and they
must avoid attitudes that could create tension and cause severances.
translated from Turkish
Hurriyet, Turkey
March 31 2007
Two meetings with the theme of Turkish-US relations took place in
Washington this week. The first was a regular meeting of the Turkish
American Council. The second was a meeting of the Turkish American
Advisory Council.
I only attended the latter but I heard the repercussions of the
former. Inevitably, the meetings took place in the shadow of the
"Armenian Genocide" bill occupying the House of Representatives agenda.
It is not possible at this stage to say that the House is going to
approve the bill before 24 April. But, provided the bill gets referred
to the General Assembly it seems likely that it will get passed with a
majority vote. Aiming to prevent the vote from being taken the White
House and the State Department are strongly emphasizing that a House
ruling would sever vital logistic support going to the American forces
in Iraq via Turkey.
Be that as it may, it is not going to be easy to stave off the pressure
of domestic policy requirements. Even if the administration does use
its muscle to delay the vote we are going to face the same problem
again next year. We must take into consideration that the US President
is going to issue a message on 24 April like he does every year. True,
the message never contains the word "genocide" but the allegations
we reject are included in the most overblown fashion.
In the meantime, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has accepted a
ruling condemning Hrant Dinks' murder, calling for Article 301 of the
Turkish Penal Code to be scrapped, and demanding the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations. It is not clear just when this ruling is
going to be passed on to the Senate Council. The text of the ruling
does include the word "genocide" in a roundabout way.
It is stated that Hrant Dink referred to the Armenian massacre as
"genocide." Of course, we cannot accept even the claim of "massacre."
But is it not contradictory to give the impression that by focusing
on the word "genocide" other accusations are acknowledged? I think
that what is needed is to fine tune reactions by assessing all these
elements.
As for Iraq; US observers are stating that Washington will not be able
to deny Turkey its right as a sovereign state to intervene in northern
Iraq against the PKK, but they say that if this course of action is
taken then Turkey will get bogged down like the United States has
become and that the military option will bring more harm than benefits.
No doubt this is realistic thinking. While it is easy to enter Iraq,
getting out again is clearly very difficult. Furthermore, Turkey has
far more vulnerabilities than the United States.
In the matter of measures against the PKK, it is clear that Gen (ret)
Edip Baser's work is paying off to some degree. Some jointly decided
measures are not being announced. These are probably to do with the
exchange of intelligence information and perhaps to do with some
intelligence activities.
A measure of success has been achieved in the matter of severing
financial aid to the PKK. Even if the northern Iraqi leaders are not
going for an operation against the PKK they are reportedly saying
that they will not tolerate its actions against Turkey. Furthermore,
Makhmur camp has been cleared of weapons under UN observation and
all passage into and out of the camp is being checked.
There are still 12,000 people in the camp including 6,000 minors. It
seems inevitable that they will become PKK terrorists provided they
stay in northern Iraq. Solutions must be looked into to enable these
children in particular to return to Turkey.
Finally, it can be said that Turkish-US relations are going to continue
along their turbulent course, but in contrast to this both sides are
aware of their common interests. The problems in our vast region are
not limited to Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Israeli-Palestine.
In both Afghanistan and Pakistan developments could take place that
could upset the balances. The one country that can help us most with
the Cyprus issue given the current conditions is the United States.
It is for these reasons that whatever differences in opinion we may
have, Turkey and the United States must adopt a line that not only
accepts one another's policies but also makes room for them, and they
must avoid attitudes that could create tension and cause severances.