Posted By Nuh Yilmaz and Ufuk Ulutas Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 3:29 PM Share
After a month of uncertainty, on Friday, Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan finally announced that he would attend the
Nuclear Security Summit hosted by President Obama in Washington. He also announced that the
Turkish Ambassador to the United States,
Namik Tan, is preparing to fly back to Washington
today. This is a clear sign that the recent phone conversation between the
Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and the Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton, has ended a month-long row between the two countries over the House
Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Armenian
resolution (H.R. 252) by a narrow margin on March 4, 2010. In protest of
the resolution, Turkey
recalled Ambassador Tan to Ankara
for consultations. During this period of uncertainty, both Turkish government
officials and business leaders in Turkey
canceled/postponed their U.S.
trips in line with the Turkish government's protest over the Armenian
resolution. The annual conference organized by the American-Turkish Council
(ATC), the leading business association in the US promoting Turkish-American
commercial and defense relations (considered by Washington insiders to be
Turkish equivalent of AIPAC), was rescheduled for a future date. The conference
has traditionally been attended by high-ranking Turkish and American
officials.
There are conflicting views among Turkey experts in Washington regarding the underlying causes
of the recent tension between the two countries. While some argue that Erdogan
has been pushing Obama's limits, others maintain that Obama does not read the
dynamics of Turkish domestic politics well, and still others claim that Turkey has given domestic calculations
precedence over its relations with the US. The disagreement has two main
causes: misapprehension of the concept "model partnership", and the
difference of methodology in foreign policy.
The hierarchical relationship that long characterized
US-Turkey relations began to change when Turkey refused to allow US forces across
its territory into Iraq on March 1, 2003. After that, crisis became a normal component
of bilateral relations through the rest of the Bush administration. But between
these once close-knit allies, a new era for relations started with Barack Obama's
election victory. Different approaches to regional problems that had previously
created crises helped the formation of what President Obama sought as a
"model partnership" between the two countries.
The model partnership proposes that bilateral relations should be based not on
a perception of hierarchy but on mutual understanding and cooperation whenever
possible. It also aims to diversify relations and not confine them only to
security cooperation.
Yet this transformation from a hierarchical
relationship to a model partnership does not seem to be appreciated fully by
analysts, especially those used to seeing the Turkey-US relationship within the
former hierarchical framework (where any disagreement between the two states
was considered to justify US
intervention in Turkish domestic politics). As such,
it is important to further conceptualize and give meaning to what the notion of
a model partnership might actually look like in practice, including the
potential roadblocks that can still make this re-framing of relations a difficult
one.
There are different approaches that the two countries can
now pursue to resolve certain conflicts, which can be summed up as a
comprehensive approach versus a fragmented approach. Ankara
fully supports Washington's comprehensive
approach in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and more recently in the Middle East Peace Process. It appreciates Washington's new
strategy that treats these conflicts not as isolated issues but as regional
problems, by taking into consideration the concerns of neighboring countries.
However, Ankara believes that the US does not follow the same comprehensive
strategy in dealing with Turkish-Armenian relations or in its attitude towards Iran.
The Turkish side expects the US
to deal with the Armenian and Iranian issues in a comprehensive manner and has
thus found it lacking in these instances.
Since Prime Minister Erdogan did not postpone his
visit to Washington
as some observers expected, we can assume that Turkish-US relations are
starting to get back on track. But now all eyes are turned towards potential
points of contention between Turkey
and the US that will be
discussed during Erdogan's visit to the US, especially the Turkish-Armenian
relations and Iranian nuclear issue.
At the moment, Turkish-Armenian relations are trapped
between two issues: the future of the Armenian resolution in the US House of
Representatives vote and the protocols waiting to be approved by the Turkish
National Assembly. Washington's game plan was
to use the H.R. 252 as a bargaining chip to urge Turkey
to move forward on the protocols, normalize relations, and reopen its border
with Armenia.
However, the US plan failed
due to several miscalculated factors, including domestic pressure in Turkey
and Turkish-Azerbaijani relations.
Ankara
claims that the Armenian
Constitutional Court's decision on protocols
"contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and
spirit of the protocols." Additionally, it argues that the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, and Turkish-Armenian relations are
all interrelated, and progress in one track would require progress in others. Washington, on the other hand, believes the ball is in Turkey's court while Armenia tries to deal with
Turkish-Armenian relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict separately.
These are the main issues that will be on the table in
a potential trilateral meeting between Erdogan, Obama, and Armenian President Sarkissian in Washington. However, Turkey still doubts the Obama administration's
willingness to deal with the issue comprehensively, taking into consideration
the fact that Azerbaijan was
not invited to the summit while Armenia, Georgia, Russia, and 40 other states were.
Ankara has
also demanded assurances from President Obama for his April 24 speech
addressing the Armenian-American community. Considering Erdogan's recent
decision to come to the US,
it seems that Ankara has indeed received the
necessary assurances from the US
administration. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the US
administration will do its best to keep the resolution out of the House and not
use the "g-word" on April 24. In Washington, Turkey will urge the OSCE Minsk
Group member countries to speed up the process to find a peaceful solution
to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and in return, give necessary assurances to
the US
that it is still committed to the protocols.
The second potential point of
conflict where the US and Turkey
haven't always seen eye-to-eye is regarding Iran. When the Assistant Secretary
for European and Eurasian Affairs, Philip Gordon, described the Obama
administration's perspective on Turkish-American relations last month at a
Brookings lecture, he urged Turkey,
more than anything, to be on the same page with the US on Iranian sanctions.
To send a strong signal to Iran,
the US
and its European allies are now trying to avoid a divided vote in the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) on a sanctions resolution. Turkey,
like Brazil,
is a key country in this sense to secure a united front if not a unanimous
vote. However, Erdogan has repeatedly expressed his disapproval on imposing
crippling sanctions on Iran
by arguing that such sanctions would not serve their ultimate purpose. Ankara believes that the diplomatic track has not been
fully exhausted, and any decision on Iran
should be made through consultations, primarily with neighboring countries, since
they are the ones that will most suffer the spillover effects of any sanctions
on Iran.
Ankara
underlines the necessity to deal with the Iranian issue based on
"universal" standards without "ideological constraints."
Ankara also
thinks that the US is acting
rather hastily on Iran in
order to appease a vocal domestic opposition in the US
against Iran, and is further
using the Iranian issue as leverage on Israel
to push for Middle East peace. Ankara certainly supports
Obama's efforts on the Middle East Peace Process and made it clear that it does
not want nuclear weapons in the region. But while both Turkey and the US
want to achieve peace in the Middle East and a nuclear weapon-free Iran,
they clearly differ in their methodologies .
What would be Turkey's
vote in the UNSC on sanctions against Iran? Would Turkey give in to US pressure and
change its rhetoric on the Iranian nuclear program? It is unlikely that Turkey would vote affirmatively on the UNSC vote
on Iran,
and abstaining would be considered a last resort. The "model partner" Turkey
would keep voicing its concerns and propose methods to find a negotiated and
peaceful solution to the Iranian problem.
A "Nuclear-Free Middle East" will most probably be the
motto of the Turkish delegation at the Nuclear Summit. And a nuclear-free
Middle East would obviously have implications not only for Iran, but also for another country in the region
that already has nuclear capability: Israel. Yet again, it seems that everything
is interrelated in the Middle East--a fact which is surely not lost on both sides of the Turkish-US relationship as they navigate through the varied landscapes of the 'model partnership' this week.
Nuh Yilmaz is Director of SETA-DC and Ufuk Ulutas is the Middle East Program
Coordinator for SETA-DC
Apologies is my post seemed to be a little ethnocentric, however it was not meant in that manner.
If israel wants to deal with Iran, it can try to deal with Iran. But Iran WONT deal with Israel. How can you expect someone that wants to wipe israel off the map to deal with israel? Israel needs turkey to be at peace with that issue. Yeah you can bomb Iran covertly, or go through mossad to assasinate someone in Iran, but in the end the guy at the top of iran is crazy, you know it, and we all know it. Which is why Israel is scared shitless.
As for the TV show depicting ?sraeli soldiers as war criminals, i completely agree wth you, that was not right. and I dont agree with it. However, the government didnt make that tv show. So you cant judge a whole country and its government for a tv show made by producers for the purpose of profit.
Its like this buddy, im not a fan of erdogan and his party. Im a republican, Ataturkian Turk. I believe in a secular government, the seperation of state and religion. But if theres one thing these islamists are doing right, its gaining power in the middle east and creating stronger ties with middle eastern countries- so as a result, Turkey is needed for Israel to be at peace with its borders.
As for the armenian thing, it mightve happened the way they say it it might not have, but at the end of the day, even IF it may have been a genocide, the purpose was not the same as hitlers genocide, it was not the cleanse turkey of armenians. Read into the reason some of those events started, why were they forced to move out first.
Every year prior to April 24, the Armenian lobby increases pressure upon the US President over the speech he will deliver. But the difference now compared to the previous years is that the aim of the considered resolution by the Foreign Affairs Commission is to corner Turkey into ratifying the protocols.
However, they are the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia's decisions which have brought the process to point of zero. Because:
The court stated that the protocols can not be interpreted or applied in a way that would contradict paragraph 11 of Armenian Declaration of Independence.
Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence of August 23, 1990 refers to Eastern Anatolia of Turkey as Western Armenia and as such beholds that this area is part of Armenia.
Since the Armenian constitution recognizes as a basis "the fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia", it likewise accepts the characterization of Eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia and this, albeit indirectly, translates into the advancement of territorial claims.
Additionally paragraph 11 also states that The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.
This means that:
1) Since genocide is accepted as a reality fort he Armenians, it will not be possible to discuss whether the 1915 events are genocide or not in the Sub-commission on the Historical Dimension mentioned in the Second Protocol. Therefore, the question arises of what this Sub-commission's task will be.
In response, it has been expressed that its task will include the discussion of issues like returning back of Armenian properties left behind after the Armenian relocation, giving compensation to descendants of the relocated Armenians, and preserving Armenian monuments, such as churches, in Turkey. Turkey is not willing to re-examine these issues which have already been resolved with the Treaty of Lausanne.
2) By putting forth that some of the Turkish lands are in fact Armenian, Armenia indirectly claims a right over these territories. In other words, again indirectly, it does not recognize the border between the two countries.
I want to remind you that The main trigger to force USA to join WWI was the letter sent by German Foreign Minister Zimmerman to Mexico expressing support to Mexico to get back the Mexican states Arizona, Texas which had just been annexed by the USA.
Germany's claim on Zudetland and Gdansk just because they were its historical lands caused burst of World War II! The Worls history is a history of wars which broke up because of territorial claims of states.
While territorial claims are so important to be reasons of war, it is not possible to understand the indifference of the USA to the Armenian claims as an ally. Armenia and the US have a false conviction that under such a pressure, Turkey will be forced to ratify the protocols.
Adoption of the resolutions in the House of Representatives clearly will damage the US-Turkey relations. Whether it is brought to the House Floor does not change the negative feelings of the Turks against the American politicians including the president.
It is striking that while the journalists and the politicians talk and write about the reaction of the Turkish government, they do not touch at the opinion of the Turkish people. Additionally it is also a little astonishing that they are surprised by the growing anti-Americanism in Turkey. It should not be missed that the last developments served to increase the anti-Americanism in Turkey more than ever, being independent to what the American and Turkish governments do at present.
Additionally, the present situation will also push Turkey-Armenia relations which have already reached a deadlock to enter into an irreversible path and will harm the normalization process. Rejection of the protocols by Turkey can even be possible.
I present the following excepts just to tell you about the other side of the picture seen from the Turkish side, which are presented by our grandmothers and grandfathers but denied by the Armenians:
Massacres inflicted upon Turks/Muslims by the Armenians during the WWI.
-In Van, Çarikser Village, a child was bayoneted and was cooked on fire as if he were a lamb by the Armenians.
-In Van, Ahtucu Village, the six-month old baby of a woman Zeliha, was thrown into the oven (tandir) by the Armenians while she was baking bread.
Then the woman was ordered to eat her baby! When she rejected, her right leg was forced into the oven and burned [Telegram of Van Gendarme Troop Commander Ali Vasif (May 11 1916)].
- In Trabzon, the massacred Muslim folk were filled into wells and the bodies of people whose arms and legs had been plucked were thrown into the gardens. The mosques were defacated and even the fruit trees were violated (Telegram of Captain Ahmet Refik, May 1, 1918).
In the Eastern Anatolia, it had become usual to see dead Muslims of all ages whose bodies had been destroyed, with heaps of cut up legs, arms, heads, noses around. The bodies of women displayed overt signs of violation by force. Russian Lieutenant Colonel Griyaznof reported that gun rockets were installed into the vaginas of women bodies.
-The Turks who had been slaughtered like animals were buried in large holes in the Eastern Anatolia (Lieutenant Colonel Twerdo-Khlebof. I wittnessed and I Lived Through Erzurum, 1917-1918. www.tsk.mil.tr/ermeni_sorunu/arsiv_belgeleriyle_ermeni_faaliyetleri/pdf/yarbay_tverdohlebov.pdf).
(Ahmet Refik Altinay. Iki Komite ve Iki Kital. Istanbul, 1919;p.71-72).
Alive children were also filled in these holes (Ermeni Komitelerinin Amal ve harekat-i Ihtilaliyesi, p 321-23).
-The Turkish History Association is continuing to open up these amss graves to bring out the bodies, as verified in eye witness accounts.
-The Armenians blinded 15 000 Turkish soldiers and burned their skin by forcing them into so-called ‘disinfection pools’ with excessive crizole, in 1918, in the prisoner camp of Alexandropol, Egypt, in cooperation with the English soldiers (Altinay Ahmet, Bir Turk Subayinin Ingiliz Esir Kampinda Uc Yili, 2004)’
-They murdered 40% of the Muslim population in Van, Bitlis, Erzurum (Ozdemir Hikmet. Salgin Hastaliklardan Olumler 1914-18. 2005).
Were the tragedies the Turks/Ottoman Muslims suffered, less than those of the Armenians?
Strikingly, the Armenians were the very responsibles of all the above events, which are only a few of all.
It is apparent that each one of the above event is a subject of a novel, a cinema or a documentary film, an essay. However, why are they not the Turks but the Armenians who prefer to mourn for the events of 90 years ago continually, through novels, films, memories etc and spend extreme effort to keep these memories alive, as if they have rehappened every new day’s morning?
It is not surprising that the Armenians fiercefully reject suggestions of Turkey to discuss these events in Joint Commissions made up of Armenian, Turkish historians and historians from other countries. Because they fear even of having a look at these events from other perspectives and therefore losing the freedom of their imagination to consider them. They seem to have liked the label of ‘a victim’ and do not want to lose it; or do not want to realize that the Turks were also victims.
2
Is it just a coincidence that while Armenian population is continually decreasing due to external migration of the workless countrymen, the diaspora Armenians are living in high standarts in Europe and USA and wealthy? And is it not interesting that instead of providing financial help for their countrymen, they spend huge amounts of money to keep Turkish hatred alive and aggravate enmity against Turkey and every kind of thing that has even any little relationship with a Turk?
Is it not amusing that it is this enemy Turkey and the Turks who provided work for more than 100 000 illegal workers of Armenia who entered Turkey up till now, unlike the wealthy diaspora Armenians who are in deep love with their country and countrymen?
Therefore, it is inevitable to remember Churchill’s saying: ‘If a dispute arises between ‘today’ and ‘yesterday’, we lose ‘tomorrow’. The Armenians and the Armenian diaspora, including the Armenian commenters of this blog, unfortunately are not aware that they are losing their ‘tomorrow’.
In a novel of a Turkish novelist Selim ?leri, a character says: ‘I killed you, while I was trying to present you my endless love’. The Armenians and Armenia are slowly killing themselves, while they are trying to express their endless love towards themselves and their grandparents….
Moreover, those who support the Armenians in their inability to move forward from 1915 are in close cooperation with them to lose their tomorrow and share the crime of this ordinary murder stemming from a confusion of love and hatred. Unfortunately being Barack Obama in chief!
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE