Tweet
ANKARA TIES ITS HANDS ON US ARMENIAN QUAGMIRE
Hurriyet
March 19 2010
Turkey
It is impossible for me to recall how many times we journalists
have used the alarming words "critical period" when reporting about
resolutions to recognize Armenian claims of "genocide." A senior
Turkish official used this same phrase to describe the weeks leading
up to April 24, the day U.S. President Barack Obama will issue his
annual statement on the 1915 killings.
The anxiety in Turkish foreign-policy circles is greater than ever
this year. Among the reasons behind this anxiety are the many "firsts"
witnessed this year.
For the first time, an Armenian "genocide" resolution passed a lower
committee of the U.S. House Representatives just ahead of April 24. It
is also the first time that Ankara has witnessed total inaction on
the part of the U.S. administration, which only changed at the very
last minute, Turkish officials say.
In the past, the conflict between the two schools of thought in
Washington, D.C., was more visible, commentators in Ankara say. Those
who argued that assertive action on the recognition of Armenian claims
would lead to a change in the Turkish stance on its history have -
until now - lost their case to those belonging to the second school
of thought, who argued that doing so would not only make Turks more
intransigent but would also damage U.S.-Turkish relations.
This time, however, Turkish officials believe that Washington listened
until the very last minute to the first school of thought.
"Those we believe to be from the second school of thought gave us the
impression that they had their hands tied. There was a clear executive
order coming from the White House not to move a finger to stop the
resolution in the committee," said a Turkish official familiar with
the issue. This inaction changed at the very last minute, but by then
it was too late.
It was this attitude of the U.S. administration that led the Turkish
state to show its reaction at the state level to a legislative action.
Calling Turkish Ambassador to Washington Namık Tan back to Ankara
for consultations was a reaction to the inaction of the U.S.
administration, not to the committee's resolution itself. Thus far,
one could justify Turkey's reaction with this line of thinking.
But the timing of sending Tan back is becoming more problematic. After
making a point of telling the U.S. administration how resentful
and angry you are by calling back your envoy for a short time, the
expected next move should be to send him back to Washington. And that
was probably the intention... until Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
opened his mouth. Every time he does that on foreign-policy issues,
it creates another headache for the Foreign Ministry.
Erdogan's harsh rhetoric and his statement establishing the benchmark
for sending the ambassador back as a clear message from Washington that
the "g-word" will not be used April 24 has tied the hands of Ankara.
Now, as you can read in the Turkish press, the government is asking the
U.S. administration to take Sweden as an example. Turkish officials
were quick to disseminate the message that Sweden, whose parliament
passed a similar resolution, had apologized. This, however, does
not actually reflect reality since the Swedish prime minister only
expressed "regrets" in his official statement. But by telling the
Turkish press that this would probably be enough to send back the
Turkish ambassador to Stockholm, Ankara wants Washington to get the
message that a similar gesture is expected from the United States
as well.
So far, statements coming from as high as the secretary of state seems
not to have satisfied Ankara, which means that the sign is expected
directly from the White House. Yet Obama is already under intense
pressure to keep the promise he made during his electoral campaign. It
would be highly unrealistic to expect him to take the Swedish line.
Meanwhile, any breakthrough on the Turkish-Armenian or
Armenian-Azerbaijani reconciliation process that could bring Ankara
and Washington out of this impasse does not seem to be on the horizon.
The mediators for the Nagorno-Karabakh problem are said to be spending
immense energy to reach an agreement between the two sides.
Apparently, Azerbaijan has agreed on a text that laid out the main
guidelines for a solution. But Armenia has asked for amendments to the
document, a move interpreted by mediators as a sign of dragging its
feet. The Armenian president seems to be concerned about being accused
of succumbing to Turkish pressure if he accepts the text on Karabakh.
So now Turkey is being accused of complicating the process by tying
the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process to the Karabakh problem.
"Had you not made a linkage between the two, the Armenian president
would have been convinced to accept the solution," Turkey is
essentially being told by the mediators. "Now he fears the opposition's
criticism that he has accepted a deal on Karabakh because of pressure
from Turkey."
Hurriyet
March 19 2010
Turkey
It is impossible for me to recall how many times we journalists
have used the alarming words "critical period" when reporting about
resolutions to recognize Armenian claims of "genocide." A senior
Turkish official used this same phrase to describe the weeks leading
up to April 24, the day U.S. President Barack Obama will issue his
annual statement on the 1915 killings.
The anxiety in Turkish foreign-policy circles is greater than ever
this year. Among the reasons behind this anxiety are the many "firsts"
witnessed this year.
For the first time, an Armenian "genocide" resolution passed a lower
committee of the U.S. House Representatives just ahead of April 24. It
is also the first time that Ankara has witnessed total inaction on
the part of the U.S. administration, which only changed at the very
last minute, Turkish officials say.
In the past, the conflict between the two schools of thought in
Washington, D.C., was more visible, commentators in Ankara say. Those
who argued that assertive action on the recognition of Armenian claims
would lead to a change in the Turkish stance on its history have -
until now - lost their case to those belonging to the second school
of thought, who argued that doing so would not only make Turks more
intransigent but would also damage U.S.-Turkish relations.
This time, however, Turkish officials believe that Washington listened
until the very last minute to the first school of thought.
"Those we believe to be from the second school of thought gave us the
impression that they had their hands tied. There was a clear executive
order coming from the White House not to move a finger to stop the
resolution in the committee," said a Turkish official familiar with
the issue. This inaction changed at the very last minute, but by then
it was too late.
It was this attitude of the U.S. administration that led the Turkish
state to show its reaction at the state level to a legislative action.
Calling Turkish Ambassador to Washington Namık Tan back to Ankara
for consultations was a reaction to the inaction of the U.S.
administration, not to the committee's resolution itself. Thus far,
one could justify Turkey's reaction with this line of thinking.
But the timing of sending Tan back is becoming more problematic. After
making a point of telling the U.S. administration how resentful
and angry you are by calling back your envoy for a short time, the
expected next move should be to send him back to Washington. And that
was probably the intention... until Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
opened his mouth. Every time he does that on foreign-policy issues,
it creates another headache for the Foreign Ministry.
Erdogan's harsh rhetoric and his statement establishing the benchmark
for sending the ambassador back as a clear message from Washington that
the "g-word" will not be used April 24 has tied the hands of Ankara.
Now, as you can read in the Turkish press, the government is asking the
U.S. administration to take Sweden as an example. Turkish officials
were quick to disseminate the message that Sweden, whose parliament
passed a similar resolution, had apologized. This, however, does
not actually reflect reality since the Swedish prime minister only
expressed "regrets" in his official statement. But by telling the
Turkish press that this would probably be enough to send back the
Turkish ambassador to Stockholm, Ankara wants Washington to get the
message that a similar gesture is expected from the United States
as well.
So far, statements coming from as high as the secretary of state seems
not to have satisfied Ankara, which means that the sign is expected
directly from the White House. Yet Obama is already under intense
pressure to keep the promise he made during his electoral campaign. It
would be highly unrealistic to expect him to take the Swedish line.
Meanwhile, any breakthrough on the Turkish-Armenian or
Armenian-Azerbaijani reconciliation process that could bring Ankara
and Washington out of this impasse does not seem to be on the horizon.
The mediators for the Nagorno-Karabakh problem are said to be spending
immense energy to reach an agreement between the two sides.
Apparently, Azerbaijan has agreed on a text that laid out the main
guidelines for a solution. But Armenia has asked for amendments to the
document, a move interpreted by mediators as a sign of dragging its
feet. The Armenian president seems to be concerned about being accused
of succumbing to Turkish pressure if he accepts the text on Karabakh.
So now Turkey is being accused of complicating the process by tying
the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process to the Karabakh problem.
"Had you not made a linkage between the two, the Armenian president
would have been convinced to accept the solution," Turkey is
essentially being told by the mediators. "Now he fears the opposition's
criticism that he has accepted a deal on Karabakh because of pressure
from Turkey."