Tweet
San Francisco Chronicle, CA
Oct 19 2007
Diplomatic offensive needed, not offensive diplomacy
Sophie Clavier,Suzanne Sanchez
Friday, October 19, 2007
First, to give a little of our biases - well, backgrounds - we are a
daughter of a Holocaust survivor and a citizen of the first country
to open an embassy with Armenia (France) and both strong supporters
of human rights. That being said, why would two international
relations scholars not usually supportive of the Bush
administration's foreign policies strongly oppose the "Affirmation of
the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution House
Resolution 106"?
Because the United States is at war - whether we like it or not.
The United States has two active military operations in the region of
Turkey and Iraq, scant supporters and mixed success. Since the
invasion of Iraq in 2003, our relationship with several of our
traditional allies has been strained. Additionally, opposition groups
have gained funding as well as local support. This can be documented
through shifts in voting records, polls and blogs in the Western
world as well as in the Middle East.
Among our allies in the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United
States has heavily relied on the Turks, our NATO partners. The Turks
have let the American forces use their territory as forward-operating
bases and supply routes. More importantly, the Turks are working
alongside American troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO.
Conversely, we have developed a productive alliance with the Kurdish
population of northern Iraq, the most stable part of that country
since 2003. This is the crux of the problem in a nutshell.
The Turks do not want to see an independent Kurdistan, which would
include the Iraqi region of Kirkuk. This area is rich in oil and
water that could become a legitimate political platform for the
Kurdistan Workers Party or as it is known the PKK (Partiya Karkerên
Kurdistan). Meanwhile, the Kurds as well as the rest of the Iraqi
groups, be they Sunni or Shiite, fear direct involvement by Turkey
will occur in the region if the PKK continue their insurgency. Oh,
and then there's that little thorny issue of past history - both the
Persian and the Ottoman empires have laid claims to Iraq and there is
certainly still an emotional link for both countries regarding this
territory.
This is why the situation has reached a level of strategic urgency.
Turkey is already in hot pursuit of PKK members designated as
terrorists in northern Iraq and has moved to legalize a full-fledged
military incursion based on the inherent sovereign right of
self-defense, which is legal under international law.
The potential of military conflict between Iraq and Turkey over the
Kurdish issue should push the United States to employ the utmost in
diplomatic finesse (not that that has been our strong suit lately) in
dealing with all the groups with vested interests in the region.
HR106 antagonizes the Turks. Indeed, the Turkish Chief General, Yasar
Buyukanit, said in the Turkish press on Oct. 17, "Whether we want it
or not, if the bill is approved at the Congress, it is not possible
for our military relations to be same as before." (
www.Turkishpress.com)
As a result, the Turkish government has said it will feel compelled
to cut off supply routes to Iraq and Afghanistan and potentially
limit Turkish support for U.S. interests in NATO. If these
consequences aren't dire enough, the resolution could also have the
long-term impact of permanently harming our strategic partnership
with the West-friendly Turkish democracy. And, to top it off, there
is the issue of oil and water access and pipeline routes in the area,
which are strategically vital resources.
As President Bush stated and we emphatically agree, "We all deeply
regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in
1915. This resolution is not the right response to these historic
mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations
with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."
Meanwhile, the resolution while legally, ethically and morally
accurate, doesn't offer much more than a rhetorical acknowledgment of
horrific acts committed on Armenians. If doing the right thing at the
wrong time is considered courageous, then some might say that we are
offering a cowardly opinion. Ultimately, what needs to be understood
is if we do this for domestic political reasons, then people on the
ground in our military operations overseas could get hurt. Is it
morally right to potentially put in harms way our troops currently
engaged in combat?
It is not the right time in the United States, and perhaps not even
the right venue, for this human tragedy to be given a proper
reckoning.
Sophie Clavier is a professor of international relations at San
Francisco State University and Suzanne Sanchez is a master's degree
candidate at San Francisco State University.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Oct 19 2007
Diplomatic offensive needed, not offensive diplomacy
Sophie Clavier,Suzanne Sanchez
Friday, October 19, 2007
First, to give a little of our biases - well, backgrounds - we are a
daughter of a Holocaust survivor and a citizen of the first country
to open an embassy with Armenia (France) and both strong supporters
of human rights. That being said, why would two international
relations scholars not usually supportive of the Bush
administration's foreign policies strongly oppose the "Affirmation of
the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution House
Resolution 106"?
Because the United States is at war - whether we like it or not.
The United States has two active military operations in the region of
Turkey and Iraq, scant supporters and mixed success. Since the
invasion of Iraq in 2003, our relationship with several of our
traditional allies has been strained. Additionally, opposition groups
have gained funding as well as local support. This can be documented
through shifts in voting records, polls and blogs in the Western
world as well as in the Middle East.
Among our allies in the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United
States has heavily relied on the Turks, our NATO partners. The Turks
have let the American forces use their territory as forward-operating
bases and supply routes. More importantly, the Turks are working
alongside American troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO.
Conversely, we have developed a productive alliance with the Kurdish
population of northern Iraq, the most stable part of that country
since 2003. This is the crux of the problem in a nutshell.
The Turks do not want to see an independent Kurdistan, which would
include the Iraqi region of Kirkuk. This area is rich in oil and
water that could become a legitimate political platform for the
Kurdistan Workers Party or as it is known the PKK (Partiya Karkerên
Kurdistan). Meanwhile, the Kurds as well as the rest of the Iraqi
groups, be they Sunni or Shiite, fear direct involvement by Turkey
will occur in the region if the PKK continue their insurgency. Oh,
and then there's that little thorny issue of past history - both the
Persian and the Ottoman empires have laid claims to Iraq and there is
certainly still an emotional link for both countries regarding this
territory.
This is why the situation has reached a level of strategic urgency.
Turkey is already in hot pursuit of PKK members designated as
terrorists in northern Iraq and has moved to legalize a full-fledged
military incursion based on the inherent sovereign right of
self-defense, which is legal under international law.
The potential of military conflict between Iraq and Turkey over the
Kurdish issue should push the United States to employ the utmost in
diplomatic finesse (not that that has been our strong suit lately) in
dealing with all the groups with vested interests in the region.
HR106 antagonizes the Turks. Indeed, the Turkish Chief General, Yasar
Buyukanit, said in the Turkish press on Oct. 17, "Whether we want it
or not, if the bill is approved at the Congress, it is not possible
for our military relations to be same as before." (
www.Turkishpress.com)
As a result, the Turkish government has said it will feel compelled
to cut off supply routes to Iraq and Afghanistan and potentially
limit Turkish support for U.S. interests in NATO. If these
consequences aren't dire enough, the resolution could also have the
long-term impact of permanently harming our strategic partnership
with the West-friendly Turkish democracy. And, to top it off, there
is the issue of oil and water access and pipeline routes in the area,
which are strategically vital resources.
As President Bush stated and we emphatically agree, "We all deeply
regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in
1915. This resolution is not the right response to these historic
mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations
with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."
Meanwhile, the resolution while legally, ethically and morally
accurate, doesn't offer much more than a rhetorical acknowledgment of
horrific acts committed on Armenians. If doing the right thing at the
wrong time is considered courageous, then some might say that we are
offering a cowardly opinion. Ultimately, what needs to be understood
is if we do this for domestic political reasons, then people on the
ground in our military operations overseas could get hurt. Is it
morally right to potentially put in harms way our troops currently
engaged in combat?
It is not the right time in the United States, and perhaps not even
the right venue, for this human tragedy to be given a proper
reckoning.
Sophie Clavier is a professor of international relations at San
Francisco State University and Suzanne Sanchez is a master's degree
candidate at San Francisco State University.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress