Tweet
Deutsche Welle , Germany
March 6 2010
Armenian genocide resolution will boost Turkish hardliners, says expert
The resolution will result in a backlash for Turkish-Armenian
reconciliation efforts The genocide resolution by a US House Committee
is counterproductive, says the former chairman of the Turkish
delegation of the European Parliament. But Ankara could have easily
avoided the showdown.
Joost Lagendijk is a senior advisor at the Istanbul Policy Center.
>From 1998 to 2009 he was a member of the European Parliament for the
Dutch Greens. Lagendiijk chaired the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary
Committee between 2004 and 2009.
Deutsche Welle: Turkey immediately recalled its ambassador from
Washington in protest over the vote of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee that labels Turkey's massacre of Armenians a genocide and
warned of further negative consequences for US-Turkish relations. What
other measures could Turkey take to protest against the resolution?
Joost Lagendijk: What has happened in the past, because we have been
here before, is that Turkey threatend to stop cooperating with the US
in Afghanistan or even went as far as threatening not to allow the
Americans to use Turkish air bases which the Americans will have to do
when they withdraw from Iraq. So there are all kinds of issues that
the Turks could threaten to put pressure on the Americans.
The US also needs Turkey's support in the UN Security Council for
tougher sanctions on Iran. Do you think that Turkey is in fact
prepared to carry out all those threats?
In the case of Iran, it's the US putting pressure on Turkey. There are
rumors that Obama might say to Turkey that he is willing to disregard
the Foreign Affairs resolution if and when Turkey votes with the US in
the Security Council in favor of sanctions against Iran. So there is
pressure being exerted from both sides.
The US wants Turkey on its side on Iran and one way of doing that is
saying if you vote with us, we will not do what the House committee
wants us to do as has happened in the past. Threatening of course,
that if Turkey doesn't vote with the US in the Security Council, Obama
might go all the way and do what the Foreign Affairs Committee wants
him to do.
Bildunterschrift: GroÃ?ansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
The air base in Incirlik, Turkey is a major hub for US missions in
Iraq and Afghanistan
The Obama administration is in a difficult situation regarding the
genocide resolution. During his campaign Barack Obama said that as
president he would recognize the genocide, but shortly before the vote
the administration warned that the bill's passage could severely
damage relations with an important NATO ally. As in the past, the
White House could pressure the House Speaker to not send the
resolution to the full House for a final vote. Do you think Obama
should and could intervene like that?
I guess in the end he will because in the next couple of months the
Obama administration will need Turkey mainly to organize a proper
withdrawal from Iraq. The best and quickest way do to so is through
Turkish airbases.
That is probably the reason why the Obama administration in the end
will do what the Bush and Clinton adminstrations did, saying please
don't take it to the floor, please don't vote on it in the full House
because it could get us into trouble with Turkey. I guess they will as
a result of serious arm-twisting by Turkey with its threats to withold
support from the American withdrawal from Iraq.
In the end, when Turkey votes with the US in the Security Council, I
think Obama will decide not to push it and will ask the speaker of the
House not to allow a full vote.
In most countries, the image of the US has improved dramatically since
Barack Obama took office, but not in Turkey. Why is that and how will
this vote effect Turkish feelings about the US?
It's true that in opinion polls one of the countries where the US is
most unpopular is Turkey. It's pretty amazing the extent to which
there is this anti-American feeling. Obama as a person is relatively
popular, especially compared to his predecessor Mr. Bush of course,
but the US as such is still quite unpopular. Most people think it has
to do with the invasion of Iraq by the US. The fact that at that point
in 2003 Turkey did not want to cooperate caused serious problems at
that moment in time.
Bildunterschrift: GroÃ?ansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
The mass killings of Armenians in 1915 under Ottoman rule are still
unresolved between Turkey and Armenia
But it's hard to explain the extent to which this unpopularity remains
and to be honest I haven't read any really satisfactory explanation
apart from the invasion of Iraq. Compared to the popularity of the US
10 or 15 years ago, there is a quite dramatic change that still needs
a proper explanation.
The Armenian genocide resolution is not new in Turkish-American
relations, but comes up regularly in Congress. To an outsider, Turkey
always seems very defensive and hard-line on the issue. It's
parliament still hasn't ratified a peace accord with Armenia. Couldn't
it take a lot of steam out of the issue, if it was perceived as more
proactive and open about reconciliation with Armenia?
Definitely. I agree with those who criticize Turkey for slowing down
this whole process that they started themselves with Armenia last
year. The Turkish government signed with the Armenian government these
protocols that would establish normal diplomatic ties, that would open
the borders and, what is important for the current issue, would set up
a committee of historians to look into the tragic events of 1915 to
establish what really happened.
Had those protocols been ratified already by the Turkish parliament, I
am sure that we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in now. So
yes, it's true the Turkish government should have pushed more and
should have used its majority in the Turkish parliament to go for
ratification.
Unfortunately, there is a traditional link now made by the government
between ratifying these protocols and solving the Nagorno-Karabach
issue (disputed region in Azerbaijan, populated mainly by ethnic
Armenians - ed.).
I think it's an unhealthy link and I hope that this situation will
also bring some more pressure on Turkey to be more forthcoming. If
these protocols had been signed, the relations between Turkey and
Armenia would have improved, and I am almost sure that the Foreign
Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives would not have voted
on a resolution like this.
Interview: Michael Knigge
Editor: Rob Mudge
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,532445 0,00.html
March 6 2010
Armenian genocide resolution will boost Turkish hardliners, says expert
The resolution will result in a backlash for Turkish-Armenian
reconciliation efforts The genocide resolution by a US House Committee
is counterproductive, says the former chairman of the Turkish
delegation of the European Parliament. But Ankara could have easily
avoided the showdown.
Joost Lagendijk is a senior advisor at the Istanbul Policy Center.
>From 1998 to 2009 he was a member of the European Parliament for the
Dutch Greens. Lagendiijk chaired the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary
Committee between 2004 and 2009.
Deutsche Welle: Turkey immediately recalled its ambassador from
Washington in protest over the vote of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee that labels Turkey's massacre of Armenians a genocide and
warned of further negative consequences for US-Turkish relations. What
other measures could Turkey take to protest against the resolution?
Joost Lagendijk: What has happened in the past, because we have been
here before, is that Turkey threatend to stop cooperating with the US
in Afghanistan or even went as far as threatening not to allow the
Americans to use Turkish air bases which the Americans will have to do
when they withdraw from Iraq. So there are all kinds of issues that
the Turks could threaten to put pressure on the Americans.
The US also needs Turkey's support in the UN Security Council for
tougher sanctions on Iran. Do you think that Turkey is in fact
prepared to carry out all those threats?
In the case of Iran, it's the US putting pressure on Turkey. There are
rumors that Obama might say to Turkey that he is willing to disregard
the Foreign Affairs resolution if and when Turkey votes with the US in
the Security Council in favor of sanctions against Iran. So there is
pressure being exerted from both sides.
The US wants Turkey on its side on Iran and one way of doing that is
saying if you vote with us, we will not do what the House committee
wants us to do as has happened in the past. Threatening of course,
that if Turkey doesn't vote with the US in the Security Council, Obama
might go all the way and do what the Foreign Affairs Committee wants
him to do.
Bildunterschrift: GroÃ?ansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
The air base in Incirlik, Turkey is a major hub for US missions in
Iraq and Afghanistan
The Obama administration is in a difficult situation regarding the
genocide resolution. During his campaign Barack Obama said that as
president he would recognize the genocide, but shortly before the vote
the administration warned that the bill's passage could severely
damage relations with an important NATO ally. As in the past, the
White House could pressure the House Speaker to not send the
resolution to the full House for a final vote. Do you think Obama
should and could intervene like that?
I guess in the end he will because in the next couple of months the
Obama administration will need Turkey mainly to organize a proper
withdrawal from Iraq. The best and quickest way do to so is through
Turkish airbases.
That is probably the reason why the Obama administration in the end
will do what the Bush and Clinton adminstrations did, saying please
don't take it to the floor, please don't vote on it in the full House
because it could get us into trouble with Turkey. I guess they will as
a result of serious arm-twisting by Turkey with its threats to withold
support from the American withdrawal from Iraq.
In the end, when Turkey votes with the US in the Security Council, I
think Obama will decide not to push it and will ask the speaker of the
House not to allow a full vote.
In most countries, the image of the US has improved dramatically since
Barack Obama took office, but not in Turkey. Why is that and how will
this vote effect Turkish feelings about the US?
It's true that in opinion polls one of the countries where the US is
most unpopular is Turkey. It's pretty amazing the extent to which
there is this anti-American feeling. Obama as a person is relatively
popular, especially compared to his predecessor Mr. Bush of course,
but the US as such is still quite unpopular. Most people think it has
to do with the invasion of Iraq by the US. The fact that at that point
in 2003 Turkey did not want to cooperate caused serious problems at
that moment in time.
Bildunterschrift: GroÃ?ansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
The mass killings of Armenians in 1915 under Ottoman rule are still
unresolved between Turkey and Armenia
But it's hard to explain the extent to which this unpopularity remains
and to be honest I haven't read any really satisfactory explanation
apart from the invasion of Iraq. Compared to the popularity of the US
10 or 15 years ago, there is a quite dramatic change that still needs
a proper explanation.
The Armenian genocide resolution is not new in Turkish-American
relations, but comes up regularly in Congress. To an outsider, Turkey
always seems very defensive and hard-line on the issue. It's
parliament still hasn't ratified a peace accord with Armenia. Couldn't
it take a lot of steam out of the issue, if it was perceived as more
proactive and open about reconciliation with Armenia?
Definitely. I agree with those who criticize Turkey for slowing down
this whole process that they started themselves with Armenia last
year. The Turkish government signed with the Armenian government these
protocols that would establish normal diplomatic ties, that would open
the borders and, what is important for the current issue, would set up
a committee of historians to look into the tragic events of 1915 to
establish what really happened.
Had those protocols been ratified already by the Turkish parliament, I
am sure that we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in now. So
yes, it's true the Turkish government should have pushed more and
should have used its majority in the Turkish parliament to go for
ratification.
Unfortunately, there is a traditional link now made by the government
between ratifying these protocols and solving the Nagorno-Karabach
issue (disputed region in Azerbaijan, populated mainly by ethnic
Armenians - ed.).
I think it's an unhealthy link and I hope that this situation will
also bring some more pressure on Turkey to be more forthcoming. If
these protocols had been signed, the relations between Turkey and
Armenia would have improved, and I am almost sure that the Foreign
Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives would not have voted
on a resolution like this.
Interview: Michael Knigge
Editor: Rob Mudge
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,532445 0,00.html