In your opinion, what is the aim of adoption of the “Armenian genocide” resolution by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Relations- to accelerate the process of opening the Armenian-Turkish border or to prevent Turkey from excessive recent rapprochement with Russia in trade, economic and even military fields, or something else?
All that you said is quite possible. But we should not forget about one more thing, quite typical for American system of governance - representative democracy. Congressmen
often act against the White House interests and even against interests
of the administration of their party.
For example, a Congressman may represent interests of a very influential Armenian Diaspora in the United States without thinking about what implications his decision on the resolution may have in the near future. The most important for him is re-election in a few years depending on the voters, among whom there are influential individuals and sponsors from the Armenian lobby. And the fact that the "genocide" has already been recognized by a number of countries is not due to high level Armenian foreign policy, but focused actions of the Armenian Diaspora. That is, there is pressure from not individual voters, but well-organized groups.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the Armenian Diaspora in the U.S. is unlikely to be larger than the Turkish or Azerbaijani Diasporas. However, we must admit that it is well organized, and its representatives act in concert. Jewish, Ukrainian and Polish Diasporas of the U.S. also act in a similar way.
In your opinion, what will be fate of the Turkey-U.S. relations?
The United States cannot afford spoiling relations with Turkey seriously. In particular, one cannot forget deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Iran. In the meantime, Turkey is a NATO member and the only key player for Americans in the Middle East for all its parameters. The White House has enough resources to stop, or at least suspend, recognition of "genocide". So, I do not expect conflict between the U.S. and Turkey. Americans perfectly understand what implications it might have.
In addition, internal political situation in Turkey must also be taken into account. Internal split prevails in the country. There is very strong trend towards development of Islamic fundamentalism. At the same time, army and supporters of secular development of the country enjoy great influence. In such situation to spoil relations with Turkey, in general, means a great favour for the Islamists and weakening of pro-Western forces in that country. Why? For the sake of resolution on what, something, that happened some 90 years ago? Americans will not do this, because it is vital for Washington to preserve the secular pro-Western Turkey with all the ensuing consequences.
The paradox is that the country that desired adoption of the resolution most of all suffered from the decision of the Congress committee more than the rest, since opening of the Turkey-Armenia border fell into oblivion for near future at least. Do you share this statement?
It is worth recall what Hillary Clinton said. She noted that such a resolution would complicate the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations ... Yes, this is largely true, but in this case one should also understand that the interests of Armenia and the Armenians self-esteem are not the same. Armenians of the U.S. have nationalistic sentiments, but they do not live in Armenia, and do not feel effects of opening or closing the border with Turkey.
So, recognition of the "genocide" is very important for their national pride and identity. So, there is also an internal conflict among Armenians in the U.S. What effect it will have on situation back in homeland is important, but the recognition of "genocide" is even more important. The struggle between national ambitions and pragmatic interests is obvious.
For example, let’s cite the Karabakh conflict as an example. Did occupation of lands bring happiness to Armenia? Is it not advantageous for them to simply return the land and establish normal relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey? It is profitable for them. It cannot to happen overnight because it is a question of national identity.
Can we say that Russia is happy at complicated relations between Turkey and the U.S.? Because now it can come even closer to Ankara and solve problems of the region without intervention of a distant America. What can you say about this?
I agree that the failure of the U.S. is seen as a success in Russia, and vice versa. Speaking specifically, I do not think that Russia can substitute the United States for Turkey. First, we must not forget that Russia has recognized the "Armenian genocide.”
A more significant is the following circumstance - Turkey remains a NATO member which is crucial for it. Russia can offer nothing like that to Turkey. Turkey’s main concern like all developing countries is not to get closer to Russia, but only to the EU, Western civilization, etc.
Therefore, strategically, Russia is not comparable centre of influence for Turkey's. The only alternative for Turkey at the moment is to build a society oriented either to the West or the Islamic society. Russia is not an attractive force here as well.
Tactically, it is possible to increase military contacts with Russia. It is unpleasant for the U.S. and one can speculate on that. Turkey also may conduct negotiations with Russia on Nabucco.
Apart from this, everyone knows that not the U.S., but Russia shapes Armenia’s policy. Because no matter how influential Armenian diaspora in the U.S. is, America is far away while Russia is not. Armenia cannot simply exist without Russia’s help. Turkey needs to understand to what degree relations with Ankara is important for the Kremlin in order to put pressure on Armenia about the disputed issues.
The answer is obvious: today Russia lacks influence (or maybe it does not have willingness, but this is another question) to ensure that Armenia has changed its position at least on a historical topic of "genocide". In the meantime, Russia is a strategic partner for Armenia, and will not easily give up this partnership. Russia's politicians are well aware that Turkey is a strong country, which will always be independent from Russia and will always be in a close touch with NATO while Armenia is a country totally dependent on Russia, one of the few remaining junior partners. Russia cherishes relations with Armenia at least for this reason.
So, strategically, Turkey will not move from pro-Western and pro-NATO position to the pro-Russian position. It will not benefit the country.
In this situation, the maximum that Russia could do is to organize a tripartite conference involving Turkey and Armenia, or even Azerbaijan. Such meetings are not usually productive, but nevertheless it would be a spectacular move on part of Russia's diplomacy.
H. Hamidov
Day.Az
|
