Thursday, 16 April 2009
Interview with Ass. Prof. Kamer Kasim by Gulay Kilic.
Associate Professor Kamer Kasim evaluated Obama's visit to Turkey in terms of Turkish-American foreign policy. He emphasized that if Turkey and the U.S. act together, both countries will have the advantage in the region.
G.K: Would you evaluate Obama's visit to Turkey?
K.K: Obama's visit to Turkey has historical importance. Relations between Turkey and the U.S. have zigzagged, especially during the Bush era. Obama's visit to Turkey is important in terms of proving the U.S.' new foreign policy vision. At the same time, I assess the visit as a significant step to discuss the role of Turkey in U.S. foreign policy and what Turkey and the U.S. expect from each other.
G.K: Obama had a positive approach to Turkey regarding the Armenian issue and he did not use the word "genocide'. However, the American Armenian National Committee announced that Obama had not fulfilled his promise regarding the 1915 events. Would you evaluate how this situation will affect the relations between Turkey and Armenia?
K.K: Obama promised to define the 1915 events as how Armenians defined it to the Armenian lobby during the election campaigns. Now, America is faced with a dilemma: the importance of relations between Turkey and the U.S. and the promise given to Armenian lobby. To me, although Armenian Lobby struggles to pass the decision in Congress, it is not a strong probability that the American administration will use the word "genocide' as the Armenian lobby wants. I think this issue will be the most significant problem for the relationship between Turkey and Armenia in the new era. All these positive developments and even the "model partnership' between Turkey and the U.S. could have been interrupted if Congress had passed the resolution. Moreover, if Congress passes the decision, Turkey-U.S. relations would be seriously injured for the third time in history. There were two events that interrupted Turkish-American relations in the Cold War Era. First, the "Johnson Letter" appeared when Turkey considered intervention in Cyprus in 1964. The letter's language was far from diplomatic or courteous. Second, the U.S. embargo which followed the Cyprus Peace Operation in 1974. If the decision passes Congress, it would damage the relations more seriously than the first two events. Turkey's expectation is that Obama should make an effort to prevent Congress from passing the decision. Clinton, a Democrat leader like Obama, is a good example for Obama. When the decision came up in Congress' agenda, Clinton wrote a letter to the Republican chairman of the Chamber of Deputies; therefore, the issue was removed from the agenda. Clinton had used the argument of Turkey's strategic importance; however, the argument of strategic importance is not a valuable reason for Turkey anymore, because there have been important developments since 2000, like some important documents related to the Armenian issue were published in Turkey. The American administration should prevent the decision from passing Congress by using Turkey's academic viewpoints. However, Obama said that he has not changed his opinion on this issue. I think this discourse is just based on the information of the Armenian lobby. The U.S. president should have a look at the archive documents and arguments of Turkey regarding the issue. Therefore, there is a risk that the U.S. President might not do anything about it. He could say that the decision passed Congress; there is nothing to do. However, this attitude does not satisfy the Turkish side, so Turkey expects Obama to do something about it. Not doing anything will not been accepted as an excuse.
I would like to point out that Obama's speech in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) uses an incorrect analogy. He mentioned the Native Americans and compared them to the nations in Ottoman Empire. It was completely wrong. Immigrants in the U.S. came from Europe and they battled each other. However, nations in the Ottoman Empire successfully lived together in peace until the 19th century. Moreover, the position of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire did not resemble Native Americans' position in the process of establishing the U.S. Armenians held important bureaucratic positions, and there was even an Armenian Foreign Minister in the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, I think Obama's analogy was not suitable.
We should ask a question here: Why does America give such importance to the Armenian issue? I guess it is related to the events of August 2008. After the conflict between Russia and Georgia in August 2008, the fact that Russia could easily intervene in the southern Caucasus emerged.
Azerbaijan is an ally of the West in the Caucasus. Georgia is an ally of the West as well; however, Georgia is also a strong ally of Russia. Moreover, Russian military forces protect Armenia's borders. Consequently, the U.S. realized that if the relations between Turkey and Armenia were normalized and if the border were opened, Armenia could integrate into the West system. Turkey has three conditions for opening the Armenian land border: (1) Armenia should recognize Turkey's territorial integrity. Moreover, this would declare good neighborly relations and Turkey's territorial integrity. (2) The Armenian administration should not bring the claims of "so-called genocide' to the international agenda. Moreover it should not use this issue as a foreign policy tool. (3) The last and the most difficult issue to solve is the Karabakh problem. Armenia has not taken any steps about this issue until now, so it is not realistic to expect Turkey to take a step. The U.S. especially should put pressure on Armenia on this issue. The U.S. should disengage itself from the Diaspora and Armenia.
G.K: Would you explain the importance of Karabakh issue and its relation to the Armenia-Turkey land border?
K.K: Karabakh is important for Azerbaijan because 20 percent of Azerbaijan's land has been occupied by Armenia. Therefore, Azerbaijan would like to accept Turkey's support for this. Armenia has occupied not only Karabakh but also other lands of Azerbaijan. Moreover, Armenia has not taken any steps to solve the problem until now. The Azerbaijani administration does not want to open the land border between Turkey and Armenia before finding a solution to the Karabakh problem. If the land border were opened, Turkey and Azerbaijan relations would deteriorate, leaving Turkey with problematic neighbors. To avoid any misunderstanding between Turkey and Azerbaijan, Turkey should give healthy and correct information about every step related to the border issue to Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijani people. The Karabakh problem could be solved between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the two parties of this issue should find a common solution. Turkey does not change its point of view on this issue.
G.K: Will Turkey have a dilemma between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the next period?
K.K: Turkey cannot have such a dilemma. Turkey has an important and close relationship with Azerbaijan and should not allow these strong and close relations to deteriorate, as that would be adverse to Turkey's interests. As for Armenia, Turkey already took a step in this regard so after that Armenia should take a step. Armenian Foreign Minister Nalbantyan and sometimes the President said that they were ready for negotiations without preconditions. It means that the Armenian side will not accept Turkey's conditions. Moreover, it is propaganda towards Turkish and world public opinion. Therefore, it is difficult to draw an optimistic statement on Turkish and Armenian relations in the upcoming period. Opening the land border is not a solution as long as Armenia does not change its attitude. If the border is opened, it will not be easy to close again and there could be bigger problems than there are now. I think the solution of the problem lies within the democratization of Armenia's interior structure. If the Armenian government continues along its current line, the steps that Turkey takes will affect the Armenian oppositions who seem more favorable towards democratization. This could cause a paradigm shift in favor of the opposition parties, who would pressure Turkey in the international arena in order to achieve their goals, which the Ter-Petrossian government was unable to accomplish even with its moderate viewpoint.
G.K: How should Obama follow a method to normalize relations?
K.K: The U.S. should follow a policy of international pressure. If the U.S. can do it and succeeds to moderate the Armenian attitude, the relationship will be normalized. It is essential that the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia should disengage. Moreover, Russia should be neutralized by means of diplomacy. The relations will be normalized if these conditions occur with the pressure of the U.S.
G.K: What would you say about Obama's Central Asia policy?
K.K: The U.S.' Central Asia policy focuses on Afghanistan more than the Central Asian Republics. Obama highlighted that "We are going to withdraw our troops from Iraq because we need them in Afghanistan" during the election campaigns. Therefore, Obama's expects Turkey not only to send military forces to Afghanistan, but to have an active role in the region. Obama wants to provide stability in Afghanistan. He does not want Afghanistan to become unstable like Iraq, since this issue will reflect poorly on his foreign policy report in the next term elections. Afghanistan seems to have priority in U.S. foreign policy.
Energy will take over U.S. foreign policy in the next term. The U.S. is going to concentrate on the Nabucco Project.
Obama discussed the "model partnership' of Turkey-U.S. relations. Model partnership does not refer to strategic partnership. Turkey is not only a Middle Eastern country, but at the same time is a part of the Caucasus, the Black Sea, and Europe; therefore, Turkey and the U.S. need an intense relationship. Both countries could benefit provided that they act together in these regions. However the U.S. should get rid of the pressure of domestic lobbies. For example, the Armenian lobby in the U.S. has not behaved in favor of the U.S.
G.K: It was predicted that the military forces would be increased. Do you think that Obama should use Turkey's military capability for the Afghanistan issue?
K.K: Turkey has already positively contributed to Afghanistan in reconstruction activities, health services, and education. Obama emphasized in the Turkish Grand National Assembly that sometimes it was necessary to use force to ensure stability. Afghanistan has some regions that require force, so the U.S. has a need for more military forces. Afghanistan has various social problems; however, increasing the military presence is necessary to control the region outside of Kabul. Obama expects allied countries to increase military forces in Afghanistan.
