Tweet
POLICY OF 1915
By MUmtaz'er TUrkOne
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 15 2007
The rise of an incident that occurred nearly a century ago as one
of the most important problems of Turkish foreign policy is very
unusual. To formulate a law in regards to events that took place during
World War I is a rather interesting decision for the US Congress,
especially considering what took place during World War II and the
Cold War, both of which stand between then and now. There is a pretty
unusual situation here.
There should be a plausible explanation for this. Why does such an
old incident bother Turkey? Why does the US Congress go after this
meaningless genocide legislation?
Why genocide comes to the agenda?
The most important reason seems to be the internal problems of the
Armenian diaspora. Only a small portion of the Armenian population
lives in Armenia. There are large Armenian communities all over the
world, particularly in the US and France. The Armenians who live
separately in other countries need to keep the bonds among themselves
intact. Sustaining such bonds and preserving one's identity is a
basic human need. The events of 1915 play a significant role for
the sustainability of these bonds between the Armenians who come
together to remember these incidents and bring them to the agenda of
the country where they live. They inform the conscience of the new
generations regarding their past and identity. The Armenians maintain
the relations between their communities in different parts of the world
in this way. 1915 turns into a common denominator between Armenians all
over the world. To make put the special agenda of a certain community
on the agenda of mainstream society is seen as a huge success. This
could be observed in the process by which the US Congress made progress
towards the recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide.
The second important factor can be found in current approaches to
minority problems. The Armenian question was a minority issue for
the Ottoman Empire under the war conditions in 1915. The minority
issues that are being discussed in different parts of the world also
determine relations to the past. An old story like that of 1915
becomes attractive for today's minorities as they consider such
questions. Thus, people start to pay attention to this particular
issue.
US domestic politics and diplomacy:
Are these two factors enough to explain the eagerness of the US
House of Representatives to proceed with their recognition of the
"Armenian genocide"? Not yet. There must be something in the current
political landscape to explain this eagerness. So attention should
also be directed to current diplomacy and domestic political balances.
The Armenian genocide issue comes on the agenda in the US every year
immediately before the presidential elections, which are held every
four years. Both the Republicans and the Democrats show interest
in this issue constantly sustained by the Armenian lobby. The
question remains on the agenda for a while and is destined to be
shelved following the elections. In this way, the Armenian genocide
resolution is kept on the agenda as a domestic political issue all
the time. But this time the case is different. For the first time the
issue was discussed very seriously. This time, a concrete result is
expected. Therefore, it is essential to see that American diplomacy
was involved in this decision to use it as a trump card against Turkey.
Turkey is one of the most influential allies for the US in its way
out of the Iraqi quagmire. The US needs trump cards to transform
the strategic partnership between the two countries into a strong
cooperation. Seen from this perspective, the Armenian genocide
resolution, currently being discussed before the US Congress, which
is seriously considering the proposed resolution, is a useful means of
imposing pressure for the US diplomats. It is very reasonable for the
American side to use the proposed Armenian genocide resolution as a
trump card against Turkey in return for its assistance with regard to
the Iraq issue. The use of such tactics is not new; it has been used
in the past by US diplomats. But something is different this time. The
US has to take radical decisions in regards to Iraq. It needs Turkey
more than ever at this stage so the trump card to be used needs to be
stronger. This is the central reason that the US Congress has chosen to
deliberate on the Armenian genocide resolution with such earnestness.
Turkey's approach
As a state whose diplomatic traditions and reflexes are strong on
such issues, it is only natural for Turkey to react. We are talking
about a diplomatic tradition by which the Turkish state intervened in
European internal balances and subsequent developments as a European
state. Turkey is very well aware of the meaning of the prevalent
eagerness to present this issue as a diplomatic problem.
Harmony between the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government
and the military wing is a result of this diplomatic maturity. Recently
Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt said the attempt of a
strategic ally to legally recognize these historical incidents in
such a way as to accuse Turkey was incomprehensible.
This statement, in fact, summarizes the subject. Buyukanýt describes
the Committee on Foreign Affairs as having shot itself in the foot
with the recent vote. The Turkish side is more concerned about Iraq.
It holds that the US does not provide the necessary support in the face
of escalating terrorism. Turkey plans to launch a military cross-border
operation to deal with this rising problem. It perceives the recent
action by the House of Representatives as inconsistent with friendship
at a time when it is getting ready to ask permission from Parliament
for such an operation.
For this reason, the remarks of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan,
who expressed anger with the US, in relation to the cross-border
operation should be taken as normal. His insistence that Turkey is
ready to pay the price for such an operation is also a warning to
the US.
What really happened in 1915?
Remembering what the 1915 incident represents to Turkey independently
of this recent diplomatic row is also important for understanding
the anger on the Turkish side.
World War I was a way of sharing imperialist spoils. The war broke
out because Germany and Italy were late in this imperialist sharing.
Ottoman soil was an important part of these imperialist moves. The
government aligned with Germany in the war out of consideration of
the seriousness of the situation.
Because the weakest link of the multinational empires was the ethnic
question, the minorities in the Ottoman state were provoked during the
war. In war conditions under which males were fighting at the front and
the remaining population was defenseless, the Armenian gangs backed
by Russia committed violent acts inside Ottoman territories. The Van
insurgency that broke out immediately after the war started made
the situation very urgent. The Ottoman state resorted to forced
migration to resolve the problem. Horrible events happened during
the migration. Many Armenians died. But the fact is that Russia,
England and France are more responsible than the Ottoman state is in
this case. Now, current imperialist considerations rather than the
incident itself are behind this diplomatic question.
There is no doubt that Turkey has the right to defend itself in
this case.
--Boundary_(ID_UuX1/efCMpy9RLRPQoWDLw)--
By MUmtaz'er TUrkOne
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Oct 15 2007
The rise of an incident that occurred nearly a century ago as one
of the most important problems of Turkish foreign policy is very
unusual. To formulate a law in regards to events that took place during
World War I is a rather interesting decision for the US Congress,
especially considering what took place during World War II and the
Cold War, both of which stand between then and now. There is a pretty
unusual situation here.
There should be a plausible explanation for this. Why does such an
old incident bother Turkey? Why does the US Congress go after this
meaningless genocide legislation?
Why genocide comes to the agenda?
The most important reason seems to be the internal problems of the
Armenian diaspora. Only a small portion of the Armenian population
lives in Armenia. There are large Armenian communities all over the
world, particularly in the US and France. The Armenians who live
separately in other countries need to keep the bonds among themselves
intact. Sustaining such bonds and preserving one's identity is a
basic human need. The events of 1915 play a significant role for
the sustainability of these bonds between the Armenians who come
together to remember these incidents and bring them to the agenda of
the country where they live. They inform the conscience of the new
generations regarding their past and identity. The Armenians maintain
the relations between their communities in different parts of the world
in this way. 1915 turns into a common denominator between Armenians all
over the world. To make put the special agenda of a certain community
on the agenda of mainstream society is seen as a huge success. This
could be observed in the process by which the US Congress made progress
towards the recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide.
The second important factor can be found in current approaches to
minority problems. The Armenian question was a minority issue for
the Ottoman Empire under the war conditions in 1915. The minority
issues that are being discussed in different parts of the world also
determine relations to the past. An old story like that of 1915
becomes attractive for today's minorities as they consider such
questions. Thus, people start to pay attention to this particular
issue.
US domestic politics and diplomacy:
Are these two factors enough to explain the eagerness of the US
House of Representatives to proceed with their recognition of the
"Armenian genocide"? Not yet. There must be something in the current
political landscape to explain this eagerness. So attention should
also be directed to current diplomacy and domestic political balances.
The Armenian genocide issue comes on the agenda in the US every year
immediately before the presidential elections, which are held every
four years. Both the Republicans and the Democrats show interest
in this issue constantly sustained by the Armenian lobby. The
question remains on the agenda for a while and is destined to be
shelved following the elections. In this way, the Armenian genocide
resolution is kept on the agenda as a domestic political issue all
the time. But this time the case is different. For the first time the
issue was discussed very seriously. This time, a concrete result is
expected. Therefore, it is essential to see that American diplomacy
was involved in this decision to use it as a trump card against Turkey.
Turkey is one of the most influential allies for the US in its way
out of the Iraqi quagmire. The US needs trump cards to transform
the strategic partnership between the two countries into a strong
cooperation. Seen from this perspective, the Armenian genocide
resolution, currently being discussed before the US Congress, which
is seriously considering the proposed resolution, is a useful means of
imposing pressure for the US diplomats. It is very reasonable for the
American side to use the proposed Armenian genocide resolution as a
trump card against Turkey in return for its assistance with regard to
the Iraq issue. The use of such tactics is not new; it has been used
in the past by US diplomats. But something is different this time. The
US has to take radical decisions in regards to Iraq. It needs Turkey
more than ever at this stage so the trump card to be used needs to be
stronger. This is the central reason that the US Congress has chosen to
deliberate on the Armenian genocide resolution with such earnestness.
Turkey's approach
As a state whose diplomatic traditions and reflexes are strong on
such issues, it is only natural for Turkey to react. We are talking
about a diplomatic tradition by which the Turkish state intervened in
European internal balances and subsequent developments as a European
state. Turkey is very well aware of the meaning of the prevalent
eagerness to present this issue as a diplomatic problem.
Harmony between the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government
and the military wing is a result of this diplomatic maturity. Recently
Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt said the attempt of a
strategic ally to legally recognize these historical incidents in
such a way as to accuse Turkey was incomprehensible.
This statement, in fact, summarizes the subject. Buyukanýt describes
the Committee on Foreign Affairs as having shot itself in the foot
with the recent vote. The Turkish side is more concerned about Iraq.
It holds that the US does not provide the necessary support in the face
of escalating terrorism. Turkey plans to launch a military cross-border
operation to deal with this rising problem. It perceives the recent
action by the House of Representatives as inconsistent with friendship
at a time when it is getting ready to ask permission from Parliament
for such an operation.
For this reason, the remarks of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan,
who expressed anger with the US, in relation to the cross-border
operation should be taken as normal. His insistence that Turkey is
ready to pay the price for such an operation is also a warning to
the US.
What really happened in 1915?
Remembering what the 1915 incident represents to Turkey independently
of this recent diplomatic row is also important for understanding
the anger on the Turkish side.
World War I was a way of sharing imperialist spoils. The war broke
out because Germany and Italy were late in this imperialist sharing.
Ottoman soil was an important part of these imperialist moves. The
government aligned with Germany in the war out of consideration of
the seriousness of the situation.
Because the weakest link of the multinational empires was the ethnic
question, the minorities in the Ottoman state were provoked during the
war. In war conditions under which males were fighting at the front and
the remaining population was defenseless, the Armenian gangs backed
by Russia committed violent acts inside Ottoman territories. The Van
insurgency that broke out immediately after the war started made
the situation very urgent. The Ottoman state resorted to forced
migration to resolve the problem. Horrible events happened during
the migration. Many Armenians died. But the fact is that Russia,
England and France are more responsible than the Ottoman state is in
this case. Now, current imperialist considerations rather than the
incident itself are behind this diplomatic question.
There is no doubt that Turkey has the right to defend itself in
this case.
--Boundary_(ID_UuX1/efCMpy9RLRPQoWDLw)--