Tweet
Al-Monitor
April 17 2015
Turkey hopes to deter Obama from using 'G-word'
Author: Cengiz ÇandarPosted April 17, 2015
Pope Francis' sermon at St. Peter's Basilica, where he spoke of the
1915 events that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman
Armenians, was expected to be the precursor for Western governments.
The speculation (and the Turkish government's concern) is focused on
the United States. April 24 is the centenary and Francis seemed to
allow for many to follow. But every year on the anniversary of the
alleged Armenian genocide, US President Barack Obama has refrained
from uttering "the G-word." He has preferred the Armenian words "Metz
Yeghern" (Great Calamity) that were used by Armenians before the UN
Genocide Convention of 1948.
The European Parliament may have to come to the rescue of Obama,
seemingly squeezed between a moral obligation and the imperatives of
foreign policy driven by national interest and the commitments of an
international coalition leader in a volatile region of the Middle
East. After all, Turkey is a NATO ally and despite its divergence on
crucial issues with Washington, it is much too valuable an asset to
alienate.
A nervous Turkish leadership already extremely hostile to the Armenian
genocide debate may not be on Obama's agenda for confrontation. He is
too occupied with keeping the Sunni discontent with the Iranian
nuclear deal in line, led by Saudi Arabia. He may see no benefit in
opening another regional front with NATO ally Turkey and not repeating
the "Metz Yeghern" this year, and following the pope's lead.
It is exactly in this sense that the European Parliament's resolution
invited, and therefore infuriated, Turkey to recognize the 1915
Armenian calamity as genocide, and may have provided an out for Obama
to avoid saying the "G-word."
On the day the European Union's legislative body adopted the
resolution that also called on member countries to recognize April 24,
1915, as a "genocide," I was at an international conference at a EU
member country. I was discussing the troubled relations of the new
Greek government with the EU with a Greek friend who chairs an
influential think tank. We shifted the conversation to the European
Parliament's resolution. He was sure that Obama would not use the
"G-word" in his April 24 statement. When I asked how he could be so
confident, he burst out in laughter and responded, "Because the
European Parliament used the 'G-word!'"
Yet, the Turkish government does not want to take any chances in its
quest to deter Obama. The reactions to the European Parliament's
resolution is a natural, expected and understandable reflection of
Turkish nationalism. It's directed mainly to deter the president of
the United States following the line drawn by the pontiff.
The uproar of Turkey's leaders to the European Parliament's resolution
that followed Francis' statement is a two-pronged political ploy. One
is directed internally for domestic policy to impress the voters in an
election campaign. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu and the ruling Justice and Development Party are keen
to mobilize the public through a nationalistic discourse that could be
a boost for their dwindling election chances. The other is related to
Turkish foreign policy vis-a-vis the West.
The Europeans have a record of handling the issue of Ottoman Armenians
in a way that angers the Turks. Therefore, the European Parliament
resolution did not come as a surprise. Nevertheless, the Turkish
leadership immediately employed harsh language in confronting the
European Parliament resolution.
Erdogan, on the eve of his state visit to Kazakhstan, declared the
European Parliament resolution as "null and void."
The Turkish Foreign Ministry promptly issued a statement with
insulting language employed against the European Parliament. The
wording was appalling for all those who are familiar with the finesse
of diplomatic language.
In the last paragraph of the statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry
did not mind sounding ridiculous in calling on Europe "to reconcile
with its past, recognizing the fact that it caused great pain to
humankind by instigating World War I and II."
The impulsive reactions of Turkish officials reached a point of
absurdity in the words of an Erdogan confidant, former Deputy Prime
Minister Emrullah Isler, who accused Armenians of committing a
"premeditated genocide" against Muslims and Turks. He alleged that
"the number of the innocent souls that Armenians murdered is 521,000.
If there was really a genocide, it is committed by Armenians." He
claimed that Francis made his sermon under certain pressures and all
such efforts lead to a dead end.
Such language appears to have influenced the tone of the European
Parliament resolution. During the debate before the resolution was
adopted, a Portuguese Christian Democrat, Paulo Rangel, criticized
Erdogan and said, "You cannot address ... Pope Francis as if you are
addressing ... a Mafia godfather."
The Economist thinks the language adopted by the Turkish leaders and
above all by Erdogan is counterproductive for Turkey's relations with
the West:
"Mr. Erdogan has taken on an angrier, more nationalistic, Islamist and
autocratic tone. This is making it harder for him not just to get on
with his neighbors but also to preserve Turkey's pro-Western
credentials as a bulwark of NATO and prospective member of the EU.
That is why Turkish twitchiness over what happened in 1915 is so
counterproductive.
"By treating the dispute as a matter of vital national interest, the
Turkish government is falling into a nationalistic trap. Instead it
should admit past sins. Like other European powers, including Britain,
Germany and Russia, it has plenty to acknowledge. Turkey has in the
past mistreated, deported or killed not only Armenians but also
Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds. But it also has reasons for pride, for
the Ottoman Empire was, for example, often more tolerant of its ethnic
minorities, including Jews, than the rest of Europe was."
Taking into consideration the importance of Turkey's ties with the EU,
particularly dealing with economy, it may seem hard to assess the
vitriolic polemics directed at the EU institutions by the current
Turkish leadership.
According to a recent survey, it is Europe that offers salvation for
the worsening economic malaise that Turkey is experiencing. Given that
exports to Middle Eastern, Russian and Ukrainian markets are declining
because of security reasons, the European market is of utmost
importance for Turkey.
Turks are not very anxious about whether or not the row over the
Armenian genocide issue will jeopardize the prospects of Turkey's
relations with the EU because they believe it is already far down on
the list and the Europeans do not wish to further damage relations
with Turkey.
With such a realpolitik projection, Turkey's main emphasis by its
venomous rhetoric against the EU is to deter the United States.
Turks feel they can afford to escalate the polemics with the EU, which
may prove temporary. But losing the United States over the "G-word"
could create irreversible damage.
Turkey's leaders do not care much whether the facts support Francis or
what the European Parliament or the EU resolves to do.
For Turks, Obama refraining from the use of the "G-word" is more vital
than ever.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/turkey-armenia-fighting-the-eu-order-deter-obama.html
April 17 2015
Turkey hopes to deter Obama from using 'G-word'
Author: Cengiz ÇandarPosted April 17, 2015
Pope Francis' sermon at St. Peter's Basilica, where he spoke of the
1915 events that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ottoman
Armenians, was expected to be the precursor for Western governments.
The speculation (and the Turkish government's concern) is focused on
the United States. April 24 is the centenary and Francis seemed to
allow for many to follow. But every year on the anniversary of the
alleged Armenian genocide, US President Barack Obama has refrained
from uttering "the G-word." He has preferred the Armenian words "Metz
Yeghern" (Great Calamity) that were used by Armenians before the UN
Genocide Convention of 1948.
The European Parliament may have to come to the rescue of Obama,
seemingly squeezed between a moral obligation and the imperatives of
foreign policy driven by national interest and the commitments of an
international coalition leader in a volatile region of the Middle
East. After all, Turkey is a NATO ally and despite its divergence on
crucial issues with Washington, it is much too valuable an asset to
alienate.
A nervous Turkish leadership already extremely hostile to the Armenian
genocide debate may not be on Obama's agenda for confrontation. He is
too occupied with keeping the Sunni discontent with the Iranian
nuclear deal in line, led by Saudi Arabia. He may see no benefit in
opening another regional front with NATO ally Turkey and not repeating
the "Metz Yeghern" this year, and following the pope's lead.
It is exactly in this sense that the European Parliament's resolution
invited, and therefore infuriated, Turkey to recognize the 1915
Armenian calamity as genocide, and may have provided an out for Obama
to avoid saying the "G-word."
On the day the European Union's legislative body adopted the
resolution that also called on member countries to recognize April 24,
1915, as a "genocide," I was at an international conference at a EU
member country. I was discussing the troubled relations of the new
Greek government with the EU with a Greek friend who chairs an
influential think tank. We shifted the conversation to the European
Parliament's resolution. He was sure that Obama would not use the
"G-word" in his April 24 statement. When I asked how he could be so
confident, he burst out in laughter and responded, "Because the
European Parliament used the 'G-word!'"
Yet, the Turkish government does not want to take any chances in its
quest to deter Obama. The reactions to the European Parliament's
resolution is a natural, expected and understandable reflection of
Turkish nationalism. It's directed mainly to deter the president of
the United States following the line drawn by the pontiff.
The uproar of Turkey's leaders to the European Parliament's resolution
that followed Francis' statement is a two-pronged political ploy. One
is directed internally for domestic policy to impress the voters in an
election campaign. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister
Ahmet Davutoglu and the ruling Justice and Development Party are keen
to mobilize the public through a nationalistic discourse that could be
a boost for their dwindling election chances. The other is related to
Turkish foreign policy vis-a-vis the West.
The Europeans have a record of handling the issue of Ottoman Armenians
in a way that angers the Turks. Therefore, the European Parliament
resolution did not come as a surprise. Nevertheless, the Turkish
leadership immediately employed harsh language in confronting the
European Parliament resolution.
Erdogan, on the eve of his state visit to Kazakhstan, declared the
European Parliament resolution as "null and void."
The Turkish Foreign Ministry promptly issued a statement with
insulting language employed against the European Parliament. The
wording was appalling for all those who are familiar with the finesse
of diplomatic language.
In the last paragraph of the statement, the Turkish Foreign Ministry
did not mind sounding ridiculous in calling on Europe "to reconcile
with its past, recognizing the fact that it caused great pain to
humankind by instigating World War I and II."
The impulsive reactions of Turkish officials reached a point of
absurdity in the words of an Erdogan confidant, former Deputy Prime
Minister Emrullah Isler, who accused Armenians of committing a
"premeditated genocide" against Muslims and Turks. He alleged that
"the number of the innocent souls that Armenians murdered is 521,000.
If there was really a genocide, it is committed by Armenians." He
claimed that Francis made his sermon under certain pressures and all
such efforts lead to a dead end.
Such language appears to have influenced the tone of the European
Parliament resolution. During the debate before the resolution was
adopted, a Portuguese Christian Democrat, Paulo Rangel, criticized
Erdogan and said, "You cannot address ... Pope Francis as if you are
addressing ... a Mafia godfather."
The Economist thinks the language adopted by the Turkish leaders and
above all by Erdogan is counterproductive for Turkey's relations with
the West:
"Mr. Erdogan has taken on an angrier, more nationalistic, Islamist and
autocratic tone. This is making it harder for him not just to get on
with his neighbors but also to preserve Turkey's pro-Western
credentials as a bulwark of NATO and prospective member of the EU.
That is why Turkish twitchiness over what happened in 1915 is so
counterproductive.
"By treating the dispute as a matter of vital national interest, the
Turkish government is falling into a nationalistic trap. Instead it
should admit past sins. Like other European powers, including Britain,
Germany and Russia, it has plenty to acknowledge. Turkey has in the
past mistreated, deported or killed not only Armenians but also
Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds. But it also has reasons for pride, for
the Ottoman Empire was, for example, often more tolerant of its ethnic
minorities, including Jews, than the rest of Europe was."
Taking into consideration the importance of Turkey's ties with the EU,
particularly dealing with economy, it may seem hard to assess the
vitriolic polemics directed at the EU institutions by the current
Turkish leadership.
According to a recent survey, it is Europe that offers salvation for
the worsening economic malaise that Turkey is experiencing. Given that
exports to Middle Eastern, Russian and Ukrainian markets are declining
because of security reasons, the European market is of utmost
importance for Turkey.
Turks are not very anxious about whether or not the row over the
Armenian genocide issue will jeopardize the prospects of Turkey's
relations with the EU because they believe it is already far down on
the list and the Europeans do not wish to further damage relations
with Turkey.
With such a realpolitik projection, Turkey's main emphasis by its
venomous rhetoric against the EU is to deter the United States.
Turks feel they can afford to escalate the polemics with the EU, which
may prove temporary. But losing the United States over the "G-word"
could create irreversible damage.
Turkey's leaders do not care much whether the facts support Francis or
what the European Parliament or the EU resolves to do.
For Turks, Obama refraining from the use of the "G-word" is more vital
than ever.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/turkey-armenia-fighting-the-eu-order-deter-obama.html