I had a conversation today with Zeyno Baran, the Turkish-born scholar and analyst, in which I asked her what she forecast for the outcome of the diplomatic crisis between Turkey and the US over the Armenian genocide resolution. She said that if the House passes the bill -- which is looking increasingly unlikely -- Turkey will absolutely invade Iraqi Kurdistan. She said the public mood in Turkey is extremely anti-American now, and the pressure on the government (which has a solid casus belli) to act, and to hell with the Americans, would be overwhelming. She also said there's no question but that the Turkish military would cut off American access to Incirlik air base too.
She said she's been talking extensively to the Democrats to let them know how extremely serious this situation is. She told me that many Democrats have no clear understanding of what's at stake here. They seem to believe that a rupture with the Turks will make George Bush look bad, and President Hillary Clinton can come into office and smooth things over. Said Zeyno, "Turks are extremely emotional about this issue, and this is not something that Bill Clinton could fix by being sent to Turkey to smile."
I told her it's jaw-dropping to imagine that the Democrats are so cynical in their calculations. She said that this could end up being a big problem for the Democrats next year, if their irresponsibility on this issue is seen as an indication of how trustworthy they would be with foreign policy.
So, unless cooler heads prevail, we're looking probably at a new front opening in the Iraq War, this one involving a NATO ally fighting our Kurdish ally, and also the loss of the airbase through which 70 percent of the materiel headed to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan passes. All to put the US Congress on record about an event that happened 90 years ago in a place maybe one in 100 Americans could find on a map. Way to go, Democratic Congress!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Kim,
The Armenian Genocide was largely the work of the Young Turks who ruled the Ottoman Empire beginning 1913. They are the forebears of Ataturk's later revolution and the fathers of the Modern, Liberal Turkish state.
If we need Turkey to deal with its treatment of Christians now, let's address that directly. How does a resolution about a 90 year old atrocity do that?
As for the US addressing our own history - yeah, well, some folks are still not comfortable with how well we've done that or how well we have addressed the lingering problems that stemmed from it. But what, exactly, does this resolution do for the Armenians? And isn't it Armenia's place to demand this, or the European Union's, seeing as how Turkey wants in so badly?
I am no more interested in empty congressional grandstanding over this issue than I was in the MoveOn ad in the NY Times a few weeks back. The work of the people is not getting done and there is plenty to do. I may even agree with Dubya on something this once.
Ouch. That hurt.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6387.html
Too bad Turkey, which claims to be the only Muslim democracy, couldn't wait for our democratic process to work its way through before saber-rattling ...
"If we need Turkey to deal with its treatment of Christians now, let's address that directly. How does a resolution about a 90 year old atrocity do that? ... isn't it Armenia's place to demand this, or the European Union's...?"
To your first question, that's my question as well. To your second, Armenia and the Armenian diaspora have been demanding acknowledgment of the sins committed against them for decades, of course. And the EU appears to be quite adamant in its demand for Turkey to come to terms with and atone for its past. The only possible good I can imagine in the proposed resolution is that it's a signal that we will no longer in the name of realpolitik block the efforts on this issue of the Armenians and the EU. Of course, failure to pass the resolution may well say exactly the opposite.
If we need Turkey to deal with its treatment of Christians now, let's address that directly. How does a resolution about a 90 year old atrocity do that?
They're denying it happened so they don't have to come to terms with what they are currently doing. It's not some indirect result.
If you want a historical analogy, it would be akin to, in the 1960s, denying slavery happened(1), because accepting that would than lead to the idea that maybe African-Americans were indeed being systematically discriminated against in the present day.
Turkey's denying it happened (and risking their acceptance into the EU) because admitting it would hinder their current repression, and hurt the people pushing it. Yeah, it doesn't make much sense, and, yes, the victim card sometimes can get a little overused. But public opinion doesn't always make sense.
1) Or that it didn't happen 'as much as people claim' or 'it wasn't as bad as people thought', or whatever weaseling the Turks have been doing WRT the Armenians.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.