Friday, 9 October 2009
Over the past century, Turkey and Armenia’s antagonistic relationship has been well known. Embroiled in a bitter conflict over their territorial rights and, of course, the events of 1915 and claims of “genocide”, the two countries have struggled to establish some sort of diplomatic relationship. This endeavor has begun to bear fruit, with recent Swiss-mediated talks in Geneva having resulted in an agreement to establish diplomatic ties that will be signed October 10 in Zurich.
Rather than remaining a disagreement between the two involved parties, the “genocide” question has spilled into the global forum, becoming a polarizing and provocative topic in several countries, especially France and the U.S. This can be partly understood by the fact that both countries have large and politically active Armenian Diasporas that have pressed their respective governments to pass legislation labeling the 1915 events as “genocide”. While France has passed such a resolution, the U.S. has not, despite increasingly intense pressure from its Armenian Diaspora and related political groups.
U.S. Involvement: Is It Enough?
While at first glance this situation might seem something in which the U.S. would play an active role, it has instead taken a more understated approach. This is mainly because the U.S. has strong interests on both sides of the issue and would like to avoid upsetting either. It should also be kept in mind that the U.S. has many other issues on its plate at the moment – two wars, a global financial crisis, and a host of domestic problems – all vying for attention.
It is in this framework that the U.S. approach to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement must be assessed. The U.S. has remained mainly on the sidelines through most of this process. It has limited room to maneuver due to Congress and an unwillingness to upset either the Turks or the Armenians. Any serious indication that the U.S. government is moving towards taking a side has resulted in an immediate and furious uproar from the other party. In 2007, for example, the House of Representatives came unprecedentedly close to passing a bill to define the 1915 events as “genocide”. This enraged Turkey and prompted it to withdraw its ambassador from Washington in a huff. The White House hastily began a series of trips to Ankara in an attempt to soothe its irritated ally. The Armenian side has also taken offense to Washington’s actions: pro-Armenian groups were not happy with President Obama’s use of the term “Meds Yeghern” when describing the historical events, instead of “genocide” as he had promised during his campaign.
Yet the Congressional role in all this should not be underestimated, for it holds much of the power and is unhesitant to wield it. In this situation, the power of Congress is pitted against the power of the President. Lobbies and Congressional Caucuses on Turkey and Armenia have significant influence, and they take pains to ensure that their efforts are not hindered by the office of the President. Thus, even though the President might prefer that the Congress not vote on whether the 1915 events were “genocide”, he does not have the power to prevent this from taking place. Furthermore, both countries have substantial lobbies working Congress on their behalf. The Armenian Lobby is one of the most powerful ethnic lobbies in Washington and has made no secret of its desire to have Congress pass a “genocide” resolution. Not to be outdone, Turkey mounted the largest foreign lobbying effort of 2008 in an attempt to persuade Congress from voting on such a resolution. [i]
In light of these hindrances and causes for restraint, it appears that the White House has been carefully walking a fine line. And, as we have seen, any missteps provoke anger and resentment in the slighted party.
Motivating Factors for U.S. Involvement
Washington was pleased by Turkey’s April decision to go ahead with talks without preconditions. But, after Turkey reneged on this and announced that it would not consider open its border with Armenia until the Nagorno-Karabakh issue had been straightened out, U.S. involvement in the rapprochement process increased.
Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has maintained an anti-Russian sphere of influence, and has been extremely wary of Russian might. The U.S. has consistently supported policies limiting Russian power and influence, and has seized any opportunity to further develop or to ensure the independence of the former Soviet states. The Armenian case is no different. The U.S. believes that Armenia could be a more stable partner than some of its neighbors, especially considering last summer’s warand Azerbaijan’s recent energy deals with Russia. Furthermore, Armenia is extensively dependent upon Russia, and the U.S. would like to give Armenia a chance to decrease this reliance and build relations with other states in the region, as well as with the U.S. Unsubstantiated rumors of U.S. involvement in the recent Turkish-Armenian talks in Geneva have been circulating in various news outlets, which hint that the U.S. might prefer the Nabucco pipeline to pass through Armenia rather than Georgia, as is the current plan.
Recent developments
Despite having their fair share of ups and downs, U.S.-Turkish relations are stronger today than in recent years. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently met with the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers, Ahmet Davutoglu and Edward Nalbandian, respectively. She reiterated America’s strong support of the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. The Nagorno-Karabakh issue was also discussed.
Senator Richard Lugar, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a statement earlier this week that he is “hopeful that the sub-committee to be established by the two countries would contribute to the solution of a disagreement on the incidents of 1915… The debate on the incidents of 1915 has an impact on U.S. politics. Almost every year, this issue comes up at the U.S. Congress. This is something not healthy for us and our relations with Turkey and Armenia. Reaching an agreement on this topic would be a real victory.”[ii]
In addition, three members of the Congressional Caucus on Turkey sent a letter to their colleagues last month, in which they expressed their support for the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement and the Swiss talks.
Although many have a positive view of these recent developments, lingering doubt remains over whether the results of the talks will be substantive or merely cosmetic.
Some are disappointed with the US’ limited role in this situation, arguing that in comparison with its involvement in other international disagreements, the US has played a far more limited role here. But, it must be remembered that Washington has minimal room to move due to various domestic constraints. Also, its interests lie with both Turkey and Armenia, and it does not want to upset the delicate balance by appearing to favor one side over the other. Although the US has refrained from showing a strong public involvement in this issue, perhaps, as certain parties have speculated, it has participated in a stealthier manner. Either way, one hopes the situation will soon reach a conclusion satisfying all.
[i] http://www.foreignlobbying.org
[ii] http://haber.turk.net/ENG/2331904/-Protocols-To-Be-Signed-By-Turkey-and-Armenia-Historical--U.S.-Senator
The Afghan War: Why Escalation Is Not the Solution
