Tweet
Navhind Times, India
Oct 27 2007
US: Deteriorating International Relations
by Inder Malhotra
FOR a country trying to cope up with the highly frustrating and
divisive Iraq War, engaged in a dangerously escalating confrontation
with Iran, immersed in a bitter presidential election campaign long
ahead of the event, worried over a likely economic recession and so
on, the United States has wrought an unexpected wonder of sorts. In
the course of a single day a fortnight ago, it added three avoidable
challenges to its already overstretched diplomacy. Ironically, the
worst friction it invited was with one of its closest allies, Turkey,
a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member that renders it
enormous help in Iraq. Sudden tensions with Russia and China may be
understandable, but why add to the already existing ones?
Of course, it is the fracas with Turkey that makes no sense at all.
Indeed, President Mr George W Bush and his Secretaries of State and
Defence, Ms Condoleezza Rice and Mr Robert Gates respectively, made
strenuous efforts at the last minute to avert the bust-up, but to no
avail, which is a measure of the enormous impact the domestic
political discord is having these days on America's conduct of its
relations with friends and foes, alike.
American sources, including the serving and retired diplomats and
experts on Turkish affairs readily conceded this, though one of them
did retaliate by saying, `You fellows are no better. Thanks to your
political quarrels; you have virtually killed the best possible
nuclear deal you could have got.' Incidentally, his blunt remark is
at some variance with the general American opinion on the subject of
the Indo-US nuclear agreement. Washington's official position is that
the deal is not dead, only deadlocked, and that it might yet be
revised. But that is a different story to be told some other time.
For the present, the arcane reasons for the totally unnecessary
dispute between Ankara and Washington - driving the Turks to a
towering rage and reducing the Bush administration to helplessness -
need to be understood.
The trouble began on October 11 when the Foreign Relations Committee
of the House of Representatives took for consideration, a resolution
to be forwarded to the whole House, condemning the `genocide' of
Armenians in the last days of the Ottoman Empire around 1915. The
Turks sent frantic messages to the White House that the adoption of
this resolution would imperil friendly relations between the two
countries and Ankara would be constrained to stop all cooperation
with the US in relation to the war in Iraq. No wonder the top guns of
the Bush administration went to work immediately, appealing to the
Democratic majority in the committee and the House to desist from
taking up a motion that would alienate an ally that was giving the US
inordinate help in the pursuit of its war in Iraq. Defence Secretary,
Mr Gates spelled out that 90 per cent of the most essential weaponry
and equipment reached the American troops in Turkey only through the
courtesy of Turkey. But the committee paid no heed and passed the
resolution by a majority of 27 to 21.
Sure enough, the enraged Turkish government immediately threatened to
terminate all cooperation with America. It has not yet done anything
in this regard but it is on the verge of achieving the same result by
sending its troops into the Kurdish area in northern Iraq to end the
guerilla attacks by Iraqi Kurds, thus aggravating Turkey's own
Kurdish problem. Conscious of this, the president of Iraq, a Kurd,
has appealed to the Kurdish guerillas to `surrender their arms or
leave Iraq.' As it happens the Kurdish area is the only relatively
stable region in Iraq and Iraqi oil reserves are located there.
Two crucial questions arise. The first is: Why is Turkey so sensitive
about criticism of a ghastly outrage that did take place 90 years ago
and for which no living Turk below the age of 102 can be blamed? The
answer is rooted in Turkish history and psyche. Even in its crumbing
days, the Ottoman Empire was a huge polyglot entity. Today's Turkey,
modern and secular, started as a nation 84 years ago. It was founded,
on the ashes of the Ottomans, by Kemal Ataturk. One of his legacies
was never to admit that the `genocide' of the Armenians in which over
one million of them were massacred, took place.
The second question is more puzzling: Why should the American
legislature, at this day and age, want to pass a resolution against
an undoubted outrage that occurred nearly a century earlier? This is
not the first time that a resolution denouncing the `genocide' of
Armenians has been moved. It comes up almost always at election time.
And thereby hangs the real reason for the strange drama.
Armenians in America are not so numerous as some of other ethnic,
religious or denominational groups. But they are very rich and
influential people. In some constituencies, they can make a key
difference. The richest and the most influential Armenians live in
the constituency of the House Speaker, Ms Nancy Pelosi. This should
explain why she, unlike some previous speakers, refused to block the
resolution. Now it seems she might change her stance. That would save
the situation.
Sharp exchanges between an increasingly assertive Russian President,
Mr Putin and US leaders have gone on for some time, and it is
arguable that it was he who upped the ante at the very moment when
the row with Turkey was at its peak. In Moscow, he lectured Ms
Condoleezza Rice and Mr Bill Gates in public and mocked the American
policies. The US felt that he was rude. Only after they suddenly
found Mr Putin visiting Iran - the first Russian leader to go to
Tehran since Stalin's wartime visit in 1943 - has Washington realised
that its insistence on building a missile defence system against Iran
at Russia's doorstep is costing it dearly.
On the other hand, America's responsibility for causing gratuitous
offence and provocation to China is manifest and complete. There was
no compelling reason for the US to confer the highest civilian honour
on the Dalai Lama and otherwise lionising him at this particular
juncture. The respected Tibetan leader has met the present and
previous US presidents no fewer than ten times but always in the
privacy of the Oval Office; never in public. This time Mr Bush did
not only confer on him the Congressional Gold Medal at Capitol Hill
the next day but both, he and the First Lady, Ms Laura Bush, welcomed
the Dalai Lama ostentatiously at the White House at the precise
moment when the House committee was adopting the anti-Turkey
resolution.
Predictably, Beijing has protested in the harshest terms and
threatened `retaliatory action.' No one knows what it will do. Mr
Bush and his advisers are confident, however, that China would not
want to risk the cancellation of the US President's visit to Beijing
at the time of the Olympics next year, which the Chinese want to make
a roaring success. In fact, America's conviction is that neither
Turkey, nor China or Russia would carry their quarrels with the US
beyond a point because none of them `can afford a complete breakdown
of relationship with the sole superpower.'
http://www.navhindtimes.com/articles .php?Story_ID=102718
Oct 27 2007
US: Deteriorating International Relations
by Inder Malhotra
FOR a country trying to cope up with the highly frustrating and
divisive Iraq War, engaged in a dangerously escalating confrontation
with Iran, immersed in a bitter presidential election campaign long
ahead of the event, worried over a likely economic recession and so
on, the United States has wrought an unexpected wonder of sorts. In
the course of a single day a fortnight ago, it added three avoidable
challenges to its already overstretched diplomacy. Ironically, the
worst friction it invited was with one of its closest allies, Turkey,
a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member that renders it
enormous help in Iraq. Sudden tensions with Russia and China may be
understandable, but why add to the already existing ones?
Of course, it is the fracas with Turkey that makes no sense at all.
Indeed, President Mr George W Bush and his Secretaries of State and
Defence, Ms Condoleezza Rice and Mr Robert Gates respectively, made
strenuous efforts at the last minute to avert the bust-up, but to no
avail, which is a measure of the enormous impact the domestic
political discord is having these days on America's conduct of its
relations with friends and foes, alike.
American sources, including the serving and retired diplomats and
experts on Turkish affairs readily conceded this, though one of them
did retaliate by saying, `You fellows are no better. Thanks to your
political quarrels; you have virtually killed the best possible
nuclear deal you could have got.' Incidentally, his blunt remark is
at some variance with the general American opinion on the subject of
the Indo-US nuclear agreement. Washington's official position is that
the deal is not dead, only deadlocked, and that it might yet be
revised. But that is a different story to be told some other time.
For the present, the arcane reasons for the totally unnecessary
dispute between Ankara and Washington - driving the Turks to a
towering rage and reducing the Bush administration to helplessness -
need to be understood.
The trouble began on October 11 when the Foreign Relations Committee
of the House of Representatives took for consideration, a resolution
to be forwarded to the whole House, condemning the `genocide' of
Armenians in the last days of the Ottoman Empire around 1915. The
Turks sent frantic messages to the White House that the adoption of
this resolution would imperil friendly relations between the two
countries and Ankara would be constrained to stop all cooperation
with the US in relation to the war in Iraq. No wonder the top guns of
the Bush administration went to work immediately, appealing to the
Democratic majority in the committee and the House to desist from
taking up a motion that would alienate an ally that was giving the US
inordinate help in the pursuit of its war in Iraq. Defence Secretary,
Mr Gates spelled out that 90 per cent of the most essential weaponry
and equipment reached the American troops in Turkey only through the
courtesy of Turkey. But the committee paid no heed and passed the
resolution by a majority of 27 to 21.
Sure enough, the enraged Turkish government immediately threatened to
terminate all cooperation with America. It has not yet done anything
in this regard but it is on the verge of achieving the same result by
sending its troops into the Kurdish area in northern Iraq to end the
guerilla attacks by Iraqi Kurds, thus aggravating Turkey's own
Kurdish problem. Conscious of this, the president of Iraq, a Kurd,
has appealed to the Kurdish guerillas to `surrender their arms or
leave Iraq.' As it happens the Kurdish area is the only relatively
stable region in Iraq and Iraqi oil reserves are located there.
Two crucial questions arise. The first is: Why is Turkey so sensitive
about criticism of a ghastly outrage that did take place 90 years ago
and for which no living Turk below the age of 102 can be blamed? The
answer is rooted in Turkish history and psyche. Even in its crumbing
days, the Ottoman Empire was a huge polyglot entity. Today's Turkey,
modern and secular, started as a nation 84 years ago. It was founded,
on the ashes of the Ottomans, by Kemal Ataturk. One of his legacies
was never to admit that the `genocide' of the Armenians in which over
one million of them were massacred, took place.
The second question is more puzzling: Why should the American
legislature, at this day and age, want to pass a resolution against
an undoubted outrage that occurred nearly a century earlier? This is
not the first time that a resolution denouncing the `genocide' of
Armenians has been moved. It comes up almost always at election time.
And thereby hangs the real reason for the strange drama.
Armenians in America are not so numerous as some of other ethnic,
religious or denominational groups. But they are very rich and
influential people. In some constituencies, they can make a key
difference. The richest and the most influential Armenians live in
the constituency of the House Speaker, Ms Nancy Pelosi. This should
explain why she, unlike some previous speakers, refused to block the
resolution. Now it seems she might change her stance. That would save
the situation.
Sharp exchanges between an increasingly assertive Russian President,
Mr Putin and US leaders have gone on for some time, and it is
arguable that it was he who upped the ante at the very moment when
the row with Turkey was at its peak. In Moscow, he lectured Ms
Condoleezza Rice and Mr Bill Gates in public and mocked the American
policies. The US felt that he was rude. Only after they suddenly
found Mr Putin visiting Iran - the first Russian leader to go to
Tehran since Stalin's wartime visit in 1943 - has Washington realised
that its insistence on building a missile defence system against Iran
at Russia's doorstep is costing it dearly.
On the other hand, America's responsibility for causing gratuitous
offence and provocation to China is manifest and complete. There was
no compelling reason for the US to confer the highest civilian honour
on the Dalai Lama and otherwise lionising him at this particular
juncture. The respected Tibetan leader has met the present and
previous US presidents no fewer than ten times but always in the
privacy of the Oval Office; never in public. This time Mr Bush did
not only confer on him the Congressional Gold Medal at Capitol Hill
the next day but both, he and the First Lady, Ms Laura Bush, welcomed
the Dalai Lama ostentatiously at the White House at the precise
moment when the House committee was adopting the anti-Turkey
resolution.
Predictably, Beijing has protested in the harshest terms and
threatened `retaliatory action.' No one knows what it will do. Mr
Bush and his advisers are confident, however, that China would not
want to risk the cancellation of the US President's visit to Beijing
at the time of the Olympics next year, which the Chinese want to make
a roaring success. In fact, America's conviction is that neither
Turkey, nor China or Russia would carry their quarrels with the US
beyond a point because none of them `can afford a complete breakdown
of relationship with the sole superpower.'
http://www.navhindtimes.com/articles .php?Story_ID=102718