Tweet
ARMENIA GENOCIDE ROW
Elena Koinova
Sofia Echo
http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/armenia-geno cide-row/id_25604/catid_5
Oct 22 2007
Bulgaria
It is a dispute that at once defies and urgently calls for resolution.
An October 10 decision by the US house of representatives foreign
affairs committee labelling the 1915-18 mass killings of Armenians,
committed by an Ottoman Empire in decay, as "genocide" has put
US-Turkish bilateral relations on a knife edge.
The US and Turkey, staunch Nato allies for decades, have a strong
record of military co-operation, the most notable recent example
being the American-led campaign in Iraq. Turkey has been the main
supply route for the US, the conduit for 70 per cent of US air cargo,
for half the US fuel, food and (among others), the outpost for air
carriers at Incirlik air base.
Recently, however, Iraq has been a bone of contention between
Washington and Ankara. While the US has been trying to narrow its
military activity in Iraq, under multilateral pressure to discard "a
four-year futile effort", it has consistently refused to back Turkey
in its campaign against guerrillas from the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK). Turkey wanted the US to legitimise its entry into northern Iraq,
where about 3500 PKK troops are said to be in hiding.
Against the background of US refusal to acquiesce in such a campaign,
and the recent outbreaks of PKK violence - in the past month alone,
30 Turkish soldiers and civilians have been killed - the decision by
a congressional committee to take an anti-Turkish stance set Turkey
on the course of reciprocal - if not retaliatory - action.
In a 27-21 vote, the foreign affairs committee approved the "genocide"
draft resolution, which is expected to be approved when it is put to
the house of representatives in November, according to international
media reports.
Even though it has curbed its 84-year secular establishment, an
Islamist-governed Turkey is firm in protecting the Kemalist legacy
in foreign policy making. With regard to the Armenian issue, it is
the Ottoman Empire and not the latter-day republic that is to be held
accountable. What is more, the resolution relates to the killing of
300 000 Armenians and not to 1.5 million, which is the standpoint
of Armenia, alongside more than 20 countries, among them France,
Germany and Russia, that have labelled what happened genocide.
Turkey has been unyielding on the issue to the point of renouncing
military co-operation agreements with France, the first country to
pass a genocide resolution. Turkey has been as recalcitrant as to
afford no trade-off between its EU membership aspirations and its
standpoint on the issue when Germany, when president of the EU, put
forward EU-wide recognition of the Armenian genocide within a wider
pan-European resolution condemning racism and xenophobia.
The October 10 decision, which put the US on the side of Turkey's
opponents on the issue, sparked an immediate outcry among Turkish
people. It appeared to mean nothing less than Turkey had less to lose
if it ventured unilateral action in Iraq.
In a very first move, Turkey recalled its ambassador to the US for
10 days for "consultations". Though the Turkish foreign ministry
insisted that the recall was not tantamount to withdrawal, the move
spurred speculation about what had changed on Turkey's strategic board.
Next, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayiip Erdogan requested
parliamentary authorisation for entry to Iraq as a move to obliterate
Kurdish cells. The Turkish parliament twice gave this endorsement in
2003, but no military action ensued.
Now the situation is different. The Turkish army has stationed 600
000 troops on the Turkish-Iraqi border and Turkey is no longer that
keen on getting international endorsement.
Turkey boldly told the US that on passage of the Armenian genocide
resolution, Ankara would cut off US supply routes and withdraw access
to the Incirlik air base and subsistence and maintenance support.
Facing a defiant Turkey, the US - itself with enfeebled support
on Iraq - has used all diplomatic means to bridge what appear to
be diametrically disparate positions. Within the past week, the US
has made multiple attempts to soften the impact of the committee's
"genocide" resolution.
The first came from US president George Bush, who called on the house
of representatives to refrain from voting on an Armenian genocide
resolution. The second, issued by US secretary of state Condoleezza
Rice in Moscow, urged Turkey to refrain from unilateral action in
northern Iraq.
Furthermore, US assistant secretary of state Dan Fried and US
undersecretary of defence Eric Edelman were redirected from Moscow
to Ankara to conduct emergency talks with Turkey's leadership. The
US officials were reported to have conveyed apologies for the
congressional committee's resolution and to have made assurances that
the US president would seek to curb the implications of the decision.
Analysts, however, believe that the situation has reached a point of
no return and a change to the existing status quo is imminent.
In an analysis released October 14 in the Institute for National
Security Studies, Gallia Lindenstrauss said: "Given [Turkey's
determination] and [that the country is] less likely to heed to
American warnings not to intervene, it is possible that the US will
decide to minimise the negative consequences of Turkish intervention
by providing at least partial co-operation."
She said that there was evidence about secret talks to this effect.
"This suggests that the possibility has already been extensively
discussed by the two sides, notwithstanding American concerns about
stability in the Kurdish-controlled autonomous area in the north of
Iraq and about a hostile reaction on the part of the Kurds, who have
been the most loyal American allies in Iraq," Lindenstrauss wrote.
Given also that the US is in much more need of Turkey as an ally, a
Turkish entry to Iraq - with the tacit condoning of the US, does not
look like an unrealistic scenario. The Turkish military has repeatedly
said that in the face of a clear and present danger, it will not
hesitate to act. All the more, it is about to scoop parliamentary
and governmental support - and with that - public support. Turkey's
strategic drawing board is changing and it remains to be seen by
how much.
Elena Koinova
Sofia Echo
http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/armenia-geno cide-row/id_25604/catid_5
Oct 22 2007
Bulgaria
It is a dispute that at once defies and urgently calls for resolution.
An October 10 decision by the US house of representatives foreign
affairs committee labelling the 1915-18 mass killings of Armenians,
committed by an Ottoman Empire in decay, as "genocide" has put
US-Turkish bilateral relations on a knife edge.
The US and Turkey, staunch Nato allies for decades, have a strong
record of military co-operation, the most notable recent example
being the American-led campaign in Iraq. Turkey has been the main
supply route for the US, the conduit for 70 per cent of US air cargo,
for half the US fuel, food and (among others), the outpost for air
carriers at Incirlik air base.
Recently, however, Iraq has been a bone of contention between
Washington and Ankara. While the US has been trying to narrow its
military activity in Iraq, under multilateral pressure to discard "a
four-year futile effort", it has consistently refused to back Turkey
in its campaign against guerrillas from the Kurdistan Workers' Party
(PKK). Turkey wanted the US to legitimise its entry into northern Iraq,
where about 3500 PKK troops are said to be in hiding.
Against the background of US refusal to acquiesce in such a campaign,
and the recent outbreaks of PKK violence - in the past month alone,
30 Turkish soldiers and civilians have been killed - the decision by
a congressional committee to take an anti-Turkish stance set Turkey
on the course of reciprocal - if not retaliatory - action.
In a 27-21 vote, the foreign affairs committee approved the "genocide"
draft resolution, which is expected to be approved when it is put to
the house of representatives in November, according to international
media reports.
Even though it has curbed its 84-year secular establishment, an
Islamist-governed Turkey is firm in protecting the Kemalist legacy
in foreign policy making. With regard to the Armenian issue, it is
the Ottoman Empire and not the latter-day republic that is to be held
accountable. What is more, the resolution relates to the killing of
300 000 Armenians and not to 1.5 million, which is the standpoint
of Armenia, alongside more than 20 countries, among them France,
Germany and Russia, that have labelled what happened genocide.
Turkey has been unyielding on the issue to the point of renouncing
military co-operation agreements with France, the first country to
pass a genocide resolution. Turkey has been as recalcitrant as to
afford no trade-off between its EU membership aspirations and its
standpoint on the issue when Germany, when president of the EU, put
forward EU-wide recognition of the Armenian genocide within a wider
pan-European resolution condemning racism and xenophobia.
The October 10 decision, which put the US on the side of Turkey's
opponents on the issue, sparked an immediate outcry among Turkish
people. It appeared to mean nothing less than Turkey had less to lose
if it ventured unilateral action in Iraq.
In a very first move, Turkey recalled its ambassador to the US for
10 days for "consultations". Though the Turkish foreign ministry
insisted that the recall was not tantamount to withdrawal, the move
spurred speculation about what had changed on Turkey's strategic board.
Next, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayiip Erdogan requested
parliamentary authorisation for entry to Iraq as a move to obliterate
Kurdish cells. The Turkish parliament twice gave this endorsement in
2003, but no military action ensued.
Now the situation is different. The Turkish army has stationed 600
000 troops on the Turkish-Iraqi border and Turkey is no longer that
keen on getting international endorsement.
Turkey boldly told the US that on passage of the Armenian genocide
resolution, Ankara would cut off US supply routes and withdraw access
to the Incirlik air base and subsistence and maintenance support.
Facing a defiant Turkey, the US - itself with enfeebled support
on Iraq - has used all diplomatic means to bridge what appear to
be diametrically disparate positions. Within the past week, the US
has made multiple attempts to soften the impact of the committee's
"genocide" resolution.
The first came from US president George Bush, who called on the house
of representatives to refrain from voting on an Armenian genocide
resolution. The second, issued by US secretary of state Condoleezza
Rice in Moscow, urged Turkey to refrain from unilateral action in
northern Iraq.
Furthermore, US assistant secretary of state Dan Fried and US
undersecretary of defence Eric Edelman were redirected from Moscow
to Ankara to conduct emergency talks with Turkey's leadership. The
US officials were reported to have conveyed apologies for the
congressional committee's resolution and to have made assurances that
the US president would seek to curb the implications of the decision.
Analysts, however, believe that the situation has reached a point of
no return and a change to the existing status quo is imminent.
In an analysis released October 14 in the Institute for National
Security Studies, Gallia Lindenstrauss said: "Given [Turkey's
determination] and [that the country is] less likely to heed to
American warnings not to intervene, it is possible that the US will
decide to minimise the negative consequences of Turkish intervention
by providing at least partial co-operation."
She said that there was evidence about secret talks to this effect.
"This suggests that the possibility has already been extensively
discussed by the two sides, notwithstanding American concerns about
stability in the Kurdish-controlled autonomous area in the north of
Iraq and about a hostile reaction on the part of the Kurds, who have
been the most loyal American allies in Iraq," Lindenstrauss wrote.
Given also that the US is in much more need of Turkey as an ally, a
Turkish entry to Iraq - with the tacit condoning of the US, does not
look like an unrealistic scenario. The Turkish military has repeatedly
said that in the face of a clear and present danger, it will not
hesitate to act. All the more, it is about to scoop parliamentary
and governmental support - and with that - public support. Turkey's
strategic drawing board is changing and it remains to be seen by
how much.