Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama's Tough Choice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama's Tough Choice

    OBAMA'S TOUGH CHOICE

    Huffington Post
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andranik-migran yan/obamas-tough-choice_b_548180.html
    April 22 2010

    On April 24 every year the U.S. President addresses the American
    people and the world to express solidarity with those who pay tribute
    to the 1915 genocide victims when 1.5 million Armenians were destroyed
    in the Ottoman Empire.

    Every presidential candidate promises to the U.S. Armenian community
    that when he comes to office he will recognize the fact of the genocide
    but neither President Clinton, nor Bush, nor President Obama have
    fulfilled their election pledges yet. The last President to keep his
    word on this was President Reagan who explicitly recognized Armenian
    Genocide in 1981.

    Last year, when on a trip to Ankara in April, President Obama,
    answering the question on Armenian-Turkish relations, did not use the
    word 'genocide' but said that his views on the issue had not changed
    since his election campaign. Then, he said "America deserves a leader
    who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide," and more. To
    avoid using the word genocide in the U.S.

    President's address on April 24, 2009 the U.S. administration had asked
    the President of Armenia to publicly announce on the eve of that date
    that some progress had been made in the negotiations with Turkey,
    and two protocols had been initialed that were aimed at normalizing
    the Armenian-Turkish relations.

    The Armenian leadership agreed to do that despite the anticipation
    of serious criticism on the part of the Diaspora and especially the
    Armenian community in the United States who thought that this played
    into the hands of the Turks and helped Obama to save face and not to
    use the word 'genocide' in his speech on April 24, the reason being
    that he did not want to impede the normalization process in the
    relations between Armenia and Turkey. Instead, he used an Armenian
    language term for the genocide. After announcing the news regarding
    the protocols right before the genocide memorial date, the Armenian
    leadership received a statement from the U.S. Department of State
    to the effect that the parties should sign the protocols without any
    preconditions and within a reasonable time frame. By virtue of this
    action Washington, to a large extent, assumed the responsibility of
    being the guarantor of signing and ratification of these protocols.

    This was followed by the signing of the protocols in Zurich by the
    foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia, with the active mediation
    of U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton.

    The Turkish side, however, kept putting forward new conditions
    for the ratification, thus protracting the process and using the
    negotiations with Armenia to block the passing of the resolution by
    U.S. Congress denouncing the genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman
    Empire and recognition of the genocide by other states.

    Such conduct on the part of the Turkish side left Armenia no choice
    under the circumstances but suspend further proceedings of the
    protocols placing the full responsibility for frustrating the talks
    on Turkey. Armenia formally did so today. It is now up to Turkey to
    settle things with the United States, France, European Union and
    Russia regarding the issue since the foreign ministers of France,
    the U.S. and Russia, as well as the representative of the EU took
    part in the protocol signing process in Zurich.

    In order to maintain the negotiations process, the President of
    Armenia was invited to participate in the Nuclear Security Summit
    in Washington, DC on April 12-13, and within the framework of the
    Summit he had meetings with the Prime Minister of Turkey, President
    Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

    The Turkish side made the ratification of the protocols contingent
    on the progress in the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and
    on the upcoming parliamentary elections in Turkey, which is not due
    until 2011. Such conduct on the part of Turkey runs contrary to the
    very essence of the protocols and the statement of the U.S. Department
    of State on normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations without any
    preconditions and within a reasonable time frame.

    Washington was not able to convince Ankara to comply with its
    obligations to ratify the protocols. It is just as unlikely to be
    able to keep Armenia in this negotiations process so as to have a
    chance for President Obama to save face this year again, in case on
    April 24 he does not use the word 'genocide' in his address.

    The Armenian side could stay in the negotiations for a while longer
    even without the ratification of the protocols by the Turkish
    Parliament if the President of the United States used the word
    'genocide' in his address on April 24. In that case neither the
    Diaspora nor the Armenian political circles in the opposition would be
    able to accuse the President of Armenia of his staying in the process,
    in fact, assisting the Turkish diplomacy and blocking the process of
    recognizing the genocide by the U.S. administration and Congress.

    The Armenian side could stay in the negotiations process given the
    certainty that this year the Congress would pass a resolution on the
    genocide of Armenians which has already gone through the Foreign
    Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives. It might stay
    in this process if there is any progress in the position of the
    mediators on the Nagorny Karabakh settlement issue and clarification
    of the issue of its status. Without some positive results on a wide
    range of issues in the Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azeri relations,
    it will be difficult for the Armenian leadership to remain in this
    process without causing itself political damage.

    In my view, as a result of the Armenian withdrawal from the process
    it is Turkey who will be the biggest loser, because yet again the
    Turkish side will show the world that it is not ready to recognize
    the genocide and apologize to the Armenian people; furthermore,
    it is not even ready to agree to a normalization of relations, thus
    presenting itself as a dangerous neighbor for Armenia and unreliable
    partner for all the countries that participated in the drafting and
    signing of the protocols.

    Obviously, not only Obama but also the United States will sustain
    serious blows to their reputation since Washington acted as an
    unbiased mediator and, even more, gave the world reasons to believe
    that he had sufficient resources to convince Turkey to sign as well
    as ratify the protocols.

    On April 24 the U.S. President is to deliver another address with
    regard to the 95th anniversary of the genocide of Armenians. He would
    do well if he came up with some language not to alienate the U.S.

    Armenian community and the Armenian people either from him personally
    or from his party on the eve of midterm elections to Congress, and
    here he should take into account certain capabilities of the Armenian
    lobby and the Armenian constituency.

    Thus, the U.S. President is facing a difficult choice. If he
    recognized the genocide he would avoid challenges to his credibility,
    and gain the support of the Armenian-American community; he would also
    perform a moral duty as President Reagan did and which, incidentally,
    has already been done by such states as France, Germany, Russia and
    others. At the same time, that would create tensions in the relations
    with Turkey which is a NATO ally and a strategic partner. Indeed,
    Turkey is still viewed as such mechanically by many in Washington.

    However, only those totally divorced from politics cannot see that
    Turkey's recent policy on all major internal and external issues has
    been shifting. Turkey has been moving from a secular state toward an
    Islamic state. Moreover, it is pursuing the ambitions to re-instate
    its role as a leader of a neo-Ottoman world and as the leader of all
    Islamic states. Internally, the Army and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are
    rapidly losing their influence as the main guarantors of Turkey as a
    secular state. In the external policy, Erdogan has repeatedly subjected
    Israel to verbal accusations and made statements on protecting Iran
    from tougher U.S. sanctions in the UN Security Council. If this rapid
    slide of the Turkish policy continues in the future, then we may not
    find too unrealistic the strategic forecast of George Friedman, founder
    of STRATFOR, in his book "The Next 100 Years", on the inevitability
    of a full-scale war between the neo-Ottoman Turkey and the United
    States as early as the middle of this century.

    In view of all these circumstances, the U.S. President will be
    presented with a tough choice that is really not too difficult.
Working...
X