Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Will the Armenian Genocide Issue Shape Future US-Turkey Relations?"

Will the Armenian Genocide Issue Shape Future US-Turkey Relations?

Marie Grunert: Ahead of his visit to Turkey, there has been much speculation as to whether President Obama would carry out his intention and recognize the Armenian genocide. In doing so, whilst he would be carrying out an intention stated in his campaign, it could have a lasting impact on US-Turkey relations

While visiting Turkey at the beginning of March, Secretary of State Clinton surprised many when she announced that a visit by President Obama would take place the following month, and emphasized the value her administration placed in strengthening bilateral relations. Making it the first Muslim destination of the new President has been interpreted by the Turks as a re-emergence of their country at the center stage of US foreign policy and an indication that Obama will not stick to his electoral pledge to recognize the Armenian genocide of 1916 in his Armenian Memorial day speech. Turkey strongly rejects the denomination of these events as genocide, (arguing that the number of victims was much lower than what Armenia claimed) and defining the causes of death as civil unrest rather than orchestrated killings. Yet, nothing is decided, the issue is still at stake, and the pressure of the Armenian diaspora strong. A letter sent to Obama by four Congressmen to urge him to adopt a resolution branding the massacre as genocide is only the latest maneuver undertaken by the Armenian Lobby. Will Obama use his trip to Turkey to prepare Ankara for the U.S. recognition or rather confirm his intention to break his election promise?

Obama has echoed his electoral campaign with the terms openness, multilateralism and resolution of the Middle East conflict. For every question Turkey's collaboration is simply crucial; as a predominately Muslim country with a secular constitution, Turkey is a good starting point to build a bridge between the Muslim and Christian civilizations. The views of the US and Turkey largely overlap, as they share a common agenda on Iran, Iraq and peace in the Middle East. As far as Iraq is concerned, Ankara's opposition to the US-led Iraq invasion and consequent refusal to allow American ground forces to operate from Turkish soil is no longer an issue. Ankara has made it clear that invasion does not equate to the end of occupation and is ready to serve as an exit route for the Americans. As a consequence the US has given an important role to Ankara in its plan to withdraw from Iraq.

On the Iranian and Syrian dossier, the collaboration of Turkey is vital as it is the sole country able to mediate between Iran and the US, and Syria and Israel. The fact that Turkey has strengthened its position as an important country for Western energy security is also rendering it an especially compelling partner. Considering the instability of the area, the importance of issues at stake and - in spite of latest positive signs - the fragility of relying on Russia on the issue of Iran, it is less surprising that the Obama administration values the collaboration of Turkey as crucial for the realization of its Middle East priorities.

As for the Armenian question, there is good reason to think that the initial Obama intent to recognize the so called "Armenian genocide" may not translate into results. Armenia and Turkey have had no diplomatic relations since 1993. The borders between Turkey and Armenia have been closed for over 15 years with both countries, especially Armenia, suffering from this embargo. Yet the mood seems to be changing. For the first time in September 2008, the Turkish President visited Yerevan and Mr. Gul and Mr. Sargsyan sat together at the stadium during a World Cup Football Qualifier. This symbolic move is a milestone in the agitated relationship of the two countries and several experts predict a formal re-opening of the border to take place as early as mid April (while not unveiling it until April 24 in order to exert maximum leverage over the Obama administration to refrain from recognizing the Armenian Genocide in his April 24 statement). During her latest visit in Turkey, Mrs. Clinton expressed her country's support for the process of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. If this is the case, it goes without saying that using the term "genocide" would agitate the calming waters and detract from the progress being made in the area. This seems to be the way out for Obama and the card he will likely choose to play, non recognition in the name of stabilization in the Caucasus.

Against this background, turning ones' back on Turkey would seem to bring about more negative than positive outcomes. It would be detrimental for the peace process in the Middle East, for the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations and for American credibility. Taking a big step forward towards Turkey by making it the first Muslim visited country by Obama and pledging partnership, then taking two steps backwards by recognizing the Armenian genocide would be incoherent and risky. Turkey is a politically, economically and demographically important country. Abandoning it may not only trigger moral consideration in terms of promises made and not maintained but is likely to give way to a rise in (religious) extremism. Will Obama risk this by recognizing the Armenian genocide? It is not worth it.

Marie Grunert is a graduate in International Relations from SAIS (Johns Hopkins)

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

April 7, 2009

Laurent Derouaux

I like this comment! What's this?

This article is a very good refelction of realist politics being applied in the international arena, and another proof that power politics takes precedent over human rights. Despite the many promises Obama will most likely continue in the direction of nearly every American President preceeding him, and omit to recognize the Armenian genocide.

Turkey is doubtelessly a very important country with which relations should be enhanced, yet not in the name of lives losts and promises made. Honestly thinking I believe Turkey made great progress, shoud be allowed EU membership, but that as many nations, it should also reach the maturity of admitting past mistakes: this does not mean giving in to Armenia, but simply showing the strength of its convictions and determination to see change through. I therefore hope that Obama will keep his promise on the 24th,and that Turkey will see this not as a condemnation or repression, but rather as an opportunity to leave the past behind and be ready to move forward to a place it deserves to hold within the internationsal arena (in an ideal world, Turkey would actually make amends before the 24th, showing it is truly a modern state, making the US recognition superfluos and providing a setting for an even more fruitful meeting).

April 7, 2009

Rob Steer, Freelance, Gold Contributor (100)

I like this comment! What's this?

I thought it was very interesting how Obama sidestepped the issue by emphasizing the importance of the views of the Armenian and Turkish people ahead of his own.

I will watch with keen interest as to what happens on the 24th, but it can already be seen that Obama has the skill and quality to keep different audiences happy with his comments, and not alienate any one particular group. A quality that it could be said that George W. Bush severely lacked.

Whether he can continue to placate everyone will go a long way to determining how effective and successful his forays into foreign policy will prove to be. The real test will come when decisive action is required.

April 13, 2009

Lee Daly, DCU, Bronze Contributor (15)

I like this comment! What's this?

I think the first post is interesting in terms of what President Obama said about the issue. It is not that there is necessarily a difference of views between Turkey and Armenia (and the rest of the world). It is the fact that there is no honest debate as to how the Turkish "view" on the matter is formed, as anyone who calls the events genocide faces prosecution.

There may also be laws in Europe against holocaust denial, but they are implemented to both acknowledge mistakes in the past as well as ensure minorities feel safe. Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism go hand in hand, as the only way holocaust deniers can explain the reams of evidence against their ideas is by invoking a vast conspiracy plot in which all Jews are complicit.

A similar narrative exists around the Armenian genocide, with young Turks brought up to believe that it is all a big lie manipulated by Armenia and western nations to undermine "Turkishness". So long as elements in Turkish politics and society maintain this falsehood to maintain their own power, true rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia will be elusive.

April 13, 2009

Lee Daly, DCU, Bronze Contributor (15)