Tweet
TURKEY UNEASY OVER OBAMA'S STATEMENT ON ARMENIA
Saban Kardas
Jamestown Foundation
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cac he=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34914&tx_ttnew s%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=d2c09bc5b0
April 28 2009
Remembrance Day caused mixed reactions on both sides of the
dispute. Although Obama refrained from referring to the killing of
Armenians as "genocide," which reflected well on Turkish diplomacy,
his clear expression of support for the Armenian position caused
anger in Turkey. In his statement, Obama said:
"Ninety four years ago, one of the great atrocities of the twentieth
century began. Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million
Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death
in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. The 'Meds Yeghern' must live
on in our memories, just as it lives on in the hearts of the Armenian
people" (www.whitehouse.gov, April 24).
Obama came under criticism by the supporters of the Armenian genocide
claims for stopping short of using the word "genocide" to describe
the events of 1915 -a pledge which he made during his election
campaign. Like other presidents before him, Obama apparently
prioritized realpolitik and did not want to harm the strategic
relationship with Turkey by risking a negative Turkish reaction
over the controversial issue. Moreover, there is a more immediate
reason for him to avoid the term: Obama does not want to jeopardize
the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey. His carefully worded
statement is yet another indication of his support for the bilateral
talks, to which Turkey and Armenia responded positively by announcing
a roadmap to work toward the normalization of their relations.
Nonetheless, this prudent act on Obama's part did not entirely
satisfy Turkish expectations. Ankara focused on the aspects of Obama's
description of the events of 1915 which are regarded as unacceptable
from the Turkish perspective. In spite of this, the phrases Obama
chose to depict the Armenian suffering were a serious blow for
Turkish diplomacy, which had done its utmost to exclude the word
"genocide" from the White House statement. Despite backtracking from
his campaign promise, Obama called the killing of Armenians a great
atrocity and used the Armenian term "Meds Yeghern" (great disaster)
to describe the events, as well as noting that his views on that
period of history remained unchanged.
Turkish officials and politicians uniformly criticized Obama's
statement, calling it one-sided and historically inaccurate. Turkish
President Abdullah Gul said he disagreed with parts of Obama's
statement, adding that "in particular, there are hundreds of thousands
of Turks and Muslims who lost their lives in 1915. Everyone's suffering
has to be shared." A press statement released by the Turkish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs also maintained that some expressions in Obama's
statement combined with the interpretation of the events of 1915 were
unacceptable from Turkey's perspective (Anadolu Ajansi, April 25).
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was more pointed in his criticism:
"the statement is far from satisfying. We cannot accept it as it
is." Erdogan questioned Obama's attitude and argued that by giving
credence to Armenian claims, Obama had bowed to short-term political
considerations. "We are deeply saddened by politicians' attempts
to exploit the events of 1915 for electoral concerns," Erdogan
added. Reflecting a sense of "disappointment" with Obama, Erdogan
maintained that Turkey is not a country that can be manipulated with
empty promises (Hurriyet, April 27).
Representatives of the opposition parties also criticized Obama's
statement. The leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party
argued that he used only the Armenian side's terminology. Whereas the
leader of the Nationalist Action Party alleged that the statement
taken in its entirety, supported unequivocally Armenian genocide
claims. The opposition found Obama's account of the 1915 events as
distorting historical reality. Moreover, they capitalized on this
incident to criticize the government's foreign policy, maintaining
that in order to prevent Obama from using the word "genocide" involved
making concessions to Armenia in breach of Turkey's national interests
-which also alienated Azerbaijan. Characterizing Obama's statement
as the starkest proof yet of the government's failed approach, they
called for a reversal of such "submissive" policies, and backing away
from the rapprochement with Yerevan (Anadolu Ajansi, ANKA, April 25).
The strong reactions from both the government and the opposition raised
questions as to how this development might damage Turkish-American
relations. Since Obama's inauguration, Turkey and the United States
have revitalized their strategic partnership. Yet Ankara made it
clear that a miscalculated American intervention in the Armenian
issue might spoil Turkish-American relations.
In its official responses so far, Turkey has not taken punitive
measures to protest against Obama's statement. Turkish diplomatic
sources reported that U.S. Ambassador to Ankara, James Jeffrey, was
invited to the Foreign Ministry to discuss the developments. Ankara's
concerns and uneasiness regarding the statement were relayed to him,
but no official note of protest to Washington was presented (ANKA,
April 27).
For its part, Ankara must have realized that despite its intensive
diplomacy, it has failed to influence Western public opinion in
favor of its view of the events in 1915. This episode shows that the
government cannot sustain its policy of denial, and should develop
a new approach to explain its own version of events. Nonetheless,
Turkey is unlikely to sever ties with the United States, though
the controversy demonstrates how the politics of the Armenian
"genocide" can potentially undermine Turkish-American relations. The
periodic resurrection of this debate in American politics hijacks
Turkish-American relations, perpetuating a crisis of trust. Nor
does it further the interests of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement,
since American intervention threatens to derail any genuine desire
to find a solution in Ankara. In the face of domestic opposition,
no Turkish government can afford to proceed with a dialogue with
Armenia or maintain friendly relations with the United States if
Washington is perceived as taking sides.
Saban Kardas
Jamestown Foundation
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cac he=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34914&tx_ttnew s%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=d2c09bc5b0
April 28 2009
Remembrance Day caused mixed reactions on both sides of the
dispute. Although Obama refrained from referring to the killing of
Armenians as "genocide," which reflected well on Turkish diplomacy,
his clear expression of support for the Armenian position caused
anger in Turkey. In his statement, Obama said:
"Ninety four years ago, one of the great atrocities of the twentieth
century began. Each year, we pause to remember the 1.5 million
Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death
in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. The 'Meds Yeghern' must live
on in our memories, just as it lives on in the hearts of the Armenian
people" (www.whitehouse.gov, April 24).
Obama came under criticism by the supporters of the Armenian genocide
claims for stopping short of using the word "genocide" to describe
the events of 1915 -a pledge which he made during his election
campaign. Like other presidents before him, Obama apparently
prioritized realpolitik and did not want to harm the strategic
relationship with Turkey by risking a negative Turkish reaction
over the controversial issue. Moreover, there is a more immediate
reason for him to avoid the term: Obama does not want to jeopardize
the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey. His carefully worded
statement is yet another indication of his support for the bilateral
talks, to which Turkey and Armenia responded positively by announcing
a roadmap to work toward the normalization of their relations.
Nonetheless, this prudent act on Obama's part did not entirely
satisfy Turkish expectations. Ankara focused on the aspects of Obama's
description of the events of 1915 which are regarded as unacceptable
from the Turkish perspective. In spite of this, the phrases Obama
chose to depict the Armenian suffering were a serious blow for
Turkish diplomacy, which had done its utmost to exclude the word
"genocide" from the White House statement. Despite backtracking from
his campaign promise, Obama called the killing of Armenians a great
atrocity and used the Armenian term "Meds Yeghern" (great disaster)
to describe the events, as well as noting that his views on that
period of history remained unchanged.
Turkish officials and politicians uniformly criticized Obama's
statement, calling it one-sided and historically inaccurate. Turkish
President Abdullah Gul said he disagreed with parts of Obama's
statement, adding that "in particular, there are hundreds of thousands
of Turks and Muslims who lost their lives in 1915. Everyone's suffering
has to be shared." A press statement released by the Turkish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs also maintained that some expressions in Obama's
statement combined with the interpretation of the events of 1915 were
unacceptable from Turkey's perspective (Anadolu Ajansi, April 25).
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was more pointed in his criticism:
"the statement is far from satisfying. We cannot accept it as it
is." Erdogan questioned Obama's attitude and argued that by giving
credence to Armenian claims, Obama had bowed to short-term political
considerations. "We are deeply saddened by politicians' attempts
to exploit the events of 1915 for electoral concerns," Erdogan
added. Reflecting a sense of "disappointment" with Obama, Erdogan
maintained that Turkey is not a country that can be manipulated with
empty promises (Hurriyet, April 27).
Representatives of the opposition parties also criticized Obama's
statement. The leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party
argued that he used only the Armenian side's terminology. Whereas the
leader of the Nationalist Action Party alleged that the statement
taken in its entirety, supported unequivocally Armenian genocide
claims. The opposition found Obama's account of the 1915 events as
distorting historical reality. Moreover, they capitalized on this
incident to criticize the government's foreign policy, maintaining
that in order to prevent Obama from using the word "genocide" involved
making concessions to Armenia in breach of Turkey's national interests
-which also alienated Azerbaijan. Characterizing Obama's statement
as the starkest proof yet of the government's failed approach, they
called for a reversal of such "submissive" policies, and backing away
from the rapprochement with Yerevan (Anadolu Ajansi, ANKA, April 25).
The strong reactions from both the government and the opposition raised
questions as to how this development might damage Turkish-American
relations. Since Obama's inauguration, Turkey and the United States
have revitalized their strategic partnership. Yet Ankara made it
clear that a miscalculated American intervention in the Armenian
issue might spoil Turkish-American relations.
In its official responses so far, Turkey has not taken punitive
measures to protest against Obama's statement. Turkish diplomatic
sources reported that U.S. Ambassador to Ankara, James Jeffrey, was
invited to the Foreign Ministry to discuss the developments. Ankara's
concerns and uneasiness regarding the statement were relayed to him,
but no official note of protest to Washington was presented (ANKA,
April 27).
For its part, Ankara must have realized that despite its intensive
diplomacy, it has failed to influence Western public opinion in
favor of its view of the events in 1915. This episode shows that the
government cannot sustain its policy of denial, and should develop
a new approach to explain its own version of events. Nonetheless,
Turkey is unlikely to sever ties with the United States, though
the controversy demonstrates how the politics of the Armenian
"genocide" can potentially undermine Turkish-American relations. The
periodic resurrection of this debate in American politics hijacks
Turkish-American relations, perpetuating a crisis of trust. Nor
does it further the interests of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement,
since American intervention threatens to derail any genuine desire
to find a solution in Ankara. In the face of domestic opposition,
no Turkish government can afford to proceed with a dialogue with
Armenia or maintain friendly relations with the United States if
Washington is perceived as taking sides.