How does the row with Turkey advance US Interests?

[akv]

I'm not sure what the logic is behind "politicizing history" in this manner. There is a lot of evidence from multinational sources that horrible things were done to the Armenians back then, IMHO there was a planned extermination, but ask what is the point in bringing it up now? We are at war with Islamic Radicals across the globe. Turkey IMHO is the secular leader of the Islamic world, and a strategic and valuable NATO ally, even if Turkey is bluffing, why alienate them? These issues took place prior to the Ataturk regime which modernized and created a secular Turkey. How is it in US interests to officially condemn Turkish ancestors for events from 1915? Doesn't Obama's hypocrisy on this topic open us up for criticism for US policies on slavery and Indian relations from our past?

Turkey threatens 'serious consequences' after US vote on Armenian genocide
Strategic partnership at risk despite Barack Obama's attempts to stop Congress

Robert Tait in Istanbul
guardian.co.uk, March 2010 21.34 GMT

Foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu says describing the 1915 Armenian killings as genocide is an insult to Turkey’s 'honour'.

Turkey has threatened to downgrade its strategic relationship with the US amid nationalist anger over a vote in the US Congress that defined the mass killings of Armenians during the first world war as genocide.

Barack Obama's administration, which regards Turkey as an important ally, was today desperately seeking to defuse the row. It expressed its frustration with the House of Representatives' foreign affairs committee, which voted 23-22 yesterday in favour of a resolution labelling the 1915 massacre of up to 1.5 million Armenians a "genocide".

A furious Turkey may now deny the US access to the Incirlik air base, a staging post for Iraq, as it did at the time of the 2003 invasion, or withdraw its sizeable troop contribution to the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

On the diplomatic front, the US needs the support of Turkey, which has a seat on the UN security council, in the push for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. Turkey is also helpful to the US on a host of other diplomatic issues in the Middle East and central Asia.

The White House and state department began work today to try to prevent the controversial issue making its way to the floor of the house for a full vote.

In Turkey, Suat Kiniklioglu, the influential deputy chairman for external affairs in the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), warned of "major consequences" if the resolution was accepted by the full House of Representatives.

"If they choose to bring this to the floor they will have to face the fact that the consequences would be serious – the relationship would be downgraded at every level," he said. "Everything from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Iraq to the Middle East process would be affected.

"There would be major disruption to the relationship between Turkey and the US."

His comments reflected deep-seated anger throughout Turkish society, as well as an official determination to press the Obama administration into making sure the resolution progresses no further.

Turkey withdrew its ambassador to Washington for urgent "consultations" immediately after the vote, which was screened live on nationwide television.

Its foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, appeared to blame the outcome on the White House, and said that describing the 1915 Armenian killings as genocide was an insult to Turkey's "honour". France and Canada have both classified the killings as genocide, unlike Britain.

"The picture shows that the US administration did not put enough weight behind the issue," Davutoglu told a news conference. "We are seriously disturbed by the result."

The mass killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians has long been a highly sensitive subject in Turkey. While the issue is now more openly debated than in the past, Turkish officials insist that to describe it as genocide equates it with the Nazi Holocaust.

Turkey admits that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died, but disputes suggestions that it was part of a programme to eliminate the population, insisting instead that many died of disease. It has also suggested that the numbers have been inflated, and pointed out that many Turks died at the hands of Armenians.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, who is on a visit to South America, stressed that both she and Obama opposed the house vote and wanted to see it go no further. She said any action by Congress was not appropriate. "We do not believe that the full Congress will, or should, act upon that resolution, and we have made that clear to all the parties involved."

Asked how she squared her support for the Armenian campaign on the election campaign trail with her new position, she said circumstances had changed, with the Turkish and Armenian governments engaged in talks on normalisation and a historical commission established to look at past events.

"I do not think it is for any other country to determine how two countries resolve matters between them, to the extent that actions that the United States might take could disrupt this process," she said.

The chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, Ken Hachikian, who led the lobbying campaign to get the house committee to back the resolution, today dismissed the Turkish threat of reprisals. "This is part of a Turkish pattern or huffing and puffing. With the other 20 countries that have passed similar resolutions, they made similar threats and then it was business as usual," he said.

Hachikian, who is based in Washington, said he hoped the vote would go to the full house before 24 April, Armenian genocide commemoration day. He accused Obama and Clinton of hypocrisy in trying to block a vote, saying they had supported the Armenian campaign during the presidential election.

He said the Turkish government had spent $1m during the past few months lobbying members of Congress. His committee had spent only $75,000, which included adverts in media outlets read by members of Congress and their staff.

Although Hachikian claimed to have the votes needed, and 215 members of the 435-member house have publicly backed the resolution, the chances of a full vote are small, given the opposition from the White House and state department.

The vote came as attempts at rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia – which have no diplomatic ties – had already run aground. A protocol signed in Geneva last October promising to restore relations has yet to be ratified by the parliament of either country.

Both Turkish and Armenian analysts voiced fears that the protocols may now be doomed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...enian-genocide

[afchic]

This issue has been brewing for about 3 years now. The reason that many, within the DOD, are concerned with this issue is because of the amount of "stuff" we move through Incirlik and the Harbur Gate. When Gen Schwartz was Commander of USTC, and testifying before the HASC in 2007, he was specifically asked how the Armenian Genocide issue could effect the ongoing war effort in Iraq. I don't have a copy of the transcript, but I am sure you can find it if you google it.

This was seen as a means for the members of Congress opposed to the war, to effectively tie our hands, without having to go on record in opposition to the war. It is all politics.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by akv

I'm not sure what the logic is behind "politicizing history" in this manner.

When is history not political?

Originally Posted by afchic

It is all politics.

Not to Armenians and others who think that Turkey should acknowledge its past.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

When is history not political?

Of course Sigaba, but unless congress has suddenly turned altruistic what do they get out of this, is the Armenian Lobby that powerful. Is Armenia that important to us, maybe a pipeline or something? Why did we wait 95 years?

[incarcerated]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/wo...GFORA_BRF.html

Turkey: A Warning for Armenians

By REUTERS
Published: March 17, 2010
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has threatened to expel thousands of illegal Armenian immigrants after American and Swedish lawmakers passed resolutions condemning as genocide the mass killings of Armenians early in the last century....

Asked about the votes in an interview with the BBC Turkish service that was broadcast late on Tuesday, Mr. Erdogan said: “There are currently 170,000 Armenians living in our country. Only 70,000 of them are Turkish citizens, but we are tolerating the remaining 100,000. If necessary, I may have to tell these 100,000 to go back to their country because they are not my citizens.”

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by akv

Why did we wait 95 years?

Maybe somebody has run out of things to apologize for........

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard

TURKEY: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL CAUTIONS AGAINST ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

The Obama administration opposes a Congressional resolution that would officially acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and it is not using the issue as a means to prompt Turkey to move forward with a reconciliation initiative with Armenia, a top US State Department official said on March 17.

http://www.eurasianet.org/department...av031710.shtml

ARMENIA: US CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ADOPTS RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

A US congressional committee narrowly passed a resolution on March 4 officially to term Ottoman Turkey’s 1915 massacre of ethnic Armenians as genocide. The move is likely to complicate relations between the United States and Turkey, and could bring the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process to a halt.

The resolution, which passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a 23-22 vote, is nonbinding, and its prospects in the full House of Representatives are unclear. Nevertheless, Turkish government officials and lobbying groups warned before the vote of adverse consequences if the resolution won approval. Turkish officials specifically mentioned that the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process would be threatened by passage of the genocide resolution.

A similar resolution was adopted by the same committee in 2007 by a slightly wider margin, but never came to a vote in the full House of Representatives.

http://www.eurasianet.org/department...v030410b.shtml

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by akv

How is it in US interests to officially condemn Turkish ancestors for events from 1915?

IMO, because the U.S. has always linked its ideology to its interests, labeling the deliberate slaughter of Armenians by Turks as genocide is a correct step to take. The fact that this step might complicate our relations with Turkey today should not deter the current administration. As a candidate said he would press this issue and he should keep his word. <<LINK>>

Originally Posted by akv

Doesn't [the president's] hypocrisy on this topic opens us up for criticism for US policies on slavery and Indian relations from our past?

IMO, the president hypocrisy on this topic undermines his leadership on foreign policy issues but it does not open up the U.S. to the type of criticism that Turkey receives. While slavery and Native American history remain controversial topics, our government does not take a position of denial on either subject.

Originally Posted by akv

[B]ut unless congress has suddenly turned altruistic what do they get out of this, is the Armenian Lobby that powerful. Is Armenia that important to us, maybe a pipeline or something? Why did we wait 95 years?

I don't know if this is a sudden development on the part of Congress or the Democratic Party. In regards to the latter, President Wilson and others were at the forefront of advocating relief for Armenians.

As for the former, earlier iterations of the resolution have been bandied about congress for years. It may well be that after using the issue to flog the administration of Bush the Younger, some members of Congress may realize that backing down on the issue now may shape voter behavior during the midterm elections.

[Richard]

It's definitely one of those moral-ethical dilemmas and a gnarly political quandary - but the facts cannot be ignored...especially by the guys being cast to wear the 'white hats' in this oater.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[craigepo]

This just doesn't pass the smell test. Morality debate aside, there is no reason for Congress to pick this fight at this time. I can see one or two dumbass congressmen doing this if they have a large Armenian voting bloc. But to put this to a vote of the US Congress, 95 years later, borders on the absurd, especially at a time when we need Turkey.

Now, if these congressmen were attempting to surreptitiously disrupt the Iraq war effort, by disrupting supply lines, this would be an effective technique.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/85...sure-is-fading

[Sigaba]

FWIW, The text of the current resolution, proposed by Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents the Golden State's twenty ninth district (which includes Glendale), is available here.

A search of the Library of Congress's database of available legislation (both proposed and passed) going back to the 101st Congress (3 Jan 1989 to 3 Jan 1991) shows a total of thirty instances of the house and senate addressing the Armenian genocide.

1 . [105th] Honoring the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide. (Introduced in House)[H.CON.RES.55.IH ][PDF]
2 . [111th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.316.IS ][PDF]
3 . [111th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.252.IH ][PDF]
4 . [109th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.316.IH ][PDF]
5 . [109th] Calling on the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic... (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.320.IS ][PDF]
6 . [109th] Whereas the 20th century was the bloodiest in history and saw the application of the tools of the modern industrial state to mass killings which have come to be called genocide; (Introduced in House)[H.CON.RES.195.IH ][PDF]
7 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Reported in House)[H.RES.596.RH ][PDF]
8 . [106th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.596.IH ][PDF]
9 . [110th] Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.106.IH ][PDF]
10 . [106th] United States Training on and Commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.398.IH ][PDF]
11 . [106th] United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (Introduced in House)[H.RES.155.IH ][PDF]
12 . [110th] Calling on the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic... (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.106.IS ][PDF]
13 . [104th] Honoring the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide. (Introduced in House)[H.CON.RES.47.IH ][PDF]
14 . [101st] Designating April 24, 1989, as `National Day of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923'. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.36.IH ]
15 . [101st] Designating April 24, 1990, as `National Day of Remembrance of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923'. (Reported in Senate)[S.J.RES.212.RS ]
16 . [101st] Designating April 24, 1990, as `National Day of Remembrance of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923'. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.417.IH ]
17 . [106th] Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 596) calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and... (Reported in House)[H.RES.625.RH ][PDF]
18 . [101st] Designating April 24, 1990, as `National Day of Remembrance of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923'. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.212.IS ]
19 . [110th] Condemning the assassination of human rights advocate and outspoken defender of freedom of the press, Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on January 19, 2007. (Introduced in House)[H.RES.102.IH ][PDF]
20 . [107th] Whereas the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide confirms that genocide is a crime under international law, defines genocide as certain acts committed... (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.307.IS ][PDF]
21 . [101st] To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to extend the program relating to certain treatment of drugs, and for other purposes. (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[S.586.PCS ]
22 . [108th] Whereas in 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the international community responded to Nazi Germany's methodically orchestrated acts of genocide by approving the Convention on the... (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.164.IS ][PDF]
23 . [110th] Condemning the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights advocate Hrant Dink and urging the people of Turkey to honor his legacy of tolerance. (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.65.IS ][PDF]
24 . [108th] Whereas in 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the international community responded to Nazi Germany's methodically orchestrated acts of genocide by approving the Convention on the... (Introduced in House)[H.RES.193.IH ][PDF]
25 . [108th] Whereas in 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust, the international community responded to Nazi Germany's methodically orchestrated acts of genocide by approving the Convention on the... (Reported in House)[H.RES.193.RH ][PDF]
26 . [110th] Condemning the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights advocate Hrant Dink and urging the people of Turkey to honor his legacy of tolerance. (Reported in Senate)[S.RES.65.RS ][PDF]
27 . [104th] Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3540.EH ][PDF]
28 . [104th] Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)[H.R.3540.RFS ][PDF]
29 . [104th] Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Reported in Senate)[H.R.3540.RS ][PDF]
30 . [104th] Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Print)[H.R.3540.PP ][PDF]

[akv]

I agree this is sticky, but shouldn't US interests always be forefront in the minds of our leadership? I saw a clip of a discussion between former national security advisors Brzezinski and Scowcroft. They observed the contrasting methods by which both Russia and Germany dealt with the darker aspects of the Soviet Union and the Nazis. The Germans admitted and condemned Nazi evils and have moved on, the recent Greek economic troubles show Europe seems fine with a prominent German political and economic role. The French may disagree, but Ms. Merkel seems a tough fair leader and the most prominent leader in Europe. In contrast, the Russians under Putin/Medvedev face their economic challenges with nostalgia about the good old days of the USSR when they were a world power and # 2. Brzezinski (of Polish origin) not surprisingly seems to have a rougher opinion of how we should deal with Russia. The Turkish reaction to all this stuff seems closer to the Russian take, which both former NSA's both agree is less stable.

[Sigaba]

AKV--

You're bringing the heat in this thread.

Originally Posted by akv

I agree this is sticky, but shouldn't US interests should always be forefront in the minds of our leadership?

I'll see your rhetorical question and raise you.

• To what extent should America's ideals inform our understanding of our interests?
• Is a 'realist' approach to foreign policy consistent with our view of American exceptionalism?
• (How does pressuring Turkey on this point impact its relations with Russia?)

Originally Posted by akv

I saw a clip of a discussion between former national security advisers Brzezinski and Scowcroft. . . . .The Germans admitted and condemned Nazi evils and have moved on....

MOO, this characterization on the part of Brzezinski and Scowcroft is not quite so tidy historically or historiographically. The manifold debates over "Germans into Nazis" continue to this day.*

(Also, some of Germany's allies in NATO were less than pleased with its preference to avoid planning to defend the alliance's Baltic members in case of a Russian invasion <<LINK>>.)

_____________________________________
* Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality, trans. Deborah Lucas Schneider (ISBN-13 978-0674022133); Alan E. Steinweis, Kristallnacht 1938 (ISBN-13 9780674036239).

[incarcerated]

Originally Posted by akv

I agree this is sticky, but shouldn't US interests should always be forefront in the minds of our leadership?

One would hope.
In 14 months, Obama has managed to strain relations with Israel, Russia, China and Germany. Turkey may simply be part of a trend.
That being said, this is a non-binding Congressional ‘resolution,’ opposed by the White House (see post # 7). It is a gesture, not policy.

That the Dems who control Congress are not on the same page as the Dems who control the White House may strike you as sloppy, amateurish, disjointed, conflicted, detrimental to American interests, or as ordinary, garden-variety poor management. But that’s just from where we sit.
A life-long Dem (he referred to himself as a Truman Democrat, whom the Party left behind in 1960) explained Socialist decision making to me this way: you throw two competing ideas into a closet, and lock the door. Whichever one comes out standing up and breathing is the one that you go with. It’s a decision making system that requires little in the way of rules, consensus, or harmony.

Not to worry: Obama will send Joe Biden over to patch things up. Expect to hear profound thanks from Biden for Turkey’s great contribution to world sanitation, hospitality and comfort: the Turkish Bath.


Just my take.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I'll see your rhetorical question and raise you.
To what extent should America's ideals inform our understanding of our interests?
Is a 'realist' approach to foreign policy consistent with our view of American exceptionalism? (How does pressuring Turkey on this point impact its relations with Russia?)

Tough Questions All,

IMHO, American exceptionalism is a by product of the blessings of geography, natural resources, and puritan work ethic in a secular state. It is simple fact America is currently the global economic and military superpower. I believe Mario Puzo's quote from The Godfather " Men cannot afford to be careless" applies to superpowers as well. Ideals are certainly very important, however are ideals static or do they evolve with time? We are still a very young nation, how do the ideals of an adolescent change by middle age, some do and some don't, but with time doesn't it seem ideals too encounter limits? Take Democracy for instance, a concept our nation holds dear and takes great pride in, a cornerstone of our exceptionalism. Yet there are clearly limits to Democracy as well. Let's say we get Iraq or Afghanistan to the point where they are stable states with fair elections, and then they elect UBL or the Muslim Brotherhood to power, then what? While not a panacea, a 'realist' approach based on US interests should guide our leaders. I believe it was Admiral Nimitz whose rules for leadership were, know your stuff, be a man, take care of your men, this seems sound advice at any level. I believe ideals mature into responsibilities.

Finally I'm not sure how pressuring Turkey impacts her relations with Russia, I would guess it gives the Russians an opening to say to Turkey,
" See how America treats her allies" akin to the opportunity Obama afforded them with the Poles and Czechs earlier. I hope the Turks are just blowing smoke to save face, but as someone mentioned earlier the logic here and now smells.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, this characterization on the part of Brzezinski and Scowcroft is not quite so tidy historically or historiographically. The manifold debates over "Germans into Nazis" continue to this day.*

Fair point, that debate is likely endless, however doesn't it seem the majority of Germans or at least their leadership don't deny the Nazi evils. Whether they knew or they didn't etc, they aren't shrinking from acknowledging these acts happened in their country.

Contrast that to the Turkish official on 60 Minutes a few weeks back, who offered up something like " It was a rough time, some Armenians died, some Turks died, many Armenians were killed by roving gangs". Provoked or not, the Turkish PM's recent Armenian deportation remarks are drawing world ire, this is supposed to be a modern European secular state and NATO ally.

Originally Posted by Incarcerated

That being said, this is a non-binding Congressional ‘resolution,’ opposed by the White House (see post # 7). It is a gesture, not policy.

True, however we all know certain "gestures" can lead to all sorts of bad things...