On October 10, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21
to approve a non-binding resolution stating that the death of 1.5
million Armenians in the former Ottoman Empire constituted
genocide. The resolution (H. Res. 106: Affirmation of the United
States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution), has 214
co-sponsors, the majority of them Democrats. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA), who represents California's Bay area, is an ardent
supporter of the resolution.
The timing for this resolution could not be more troubling, as
evidenced by violent protests in Ankara, Turkey, and a recall of
the Turkish Ambassador for consultations immediately following the
committee vote. If brought to a vote before the full House,
Congress would further strain an already fragile relationship with
a key Middle Eastern ally, while severely endangering vital U.S.
security interests in the greater Middle East. In particular, such
a vote would endanger the safety and security of Coalition troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan. This resolution stokes nationalist fervor
and does nothing to further reconciliation efforts between
Armenians and Turks, as both peoples are amenable to
dialogue.
A Tragic History
From 1915 to 1923, many Armenians were deported from Anatolia,
in present day Turkey, into Syria's Derzor Desert, and slaughtered
along the way. Turkish troops and Kurdish militants left many to
die of thirst, hunger, heat, and exhaustion. As the result, 1.5
million perished. Yet, the opinions of Armenian and Turkish
scholars differ widely on this narrative. Turks, for example, claim
that Armenians rebelled behind the Turkish lines and sided with the
Russian Empire during World War I. The atrocities, Turkish scholars
say, were the result of putting down a domestic rebellion.
The fact remains that it was the Young Turks government of the
dying Ottoman Empire, and not the current government of Turkey,
that was largely responsible for this tragedy. Regardless, these
atrocities should be fully acknowledged. Those pushing the Armenian
Genocide resolution, however, appear more determined to reopen
nearly century-old wounds than to engage a modern, secular, and
strategically important Middle Eastern state, Turkey.
A Blow to U.S. Foreign Policy
Given the obvious complications this resolution creates for U.S.
Middle East policy, it is reasonable to question what led to its
consideration at such an inauspicious time. Throughout and after
the Cold War, the bipartisan majority among the American foreign
policy community supported the robust U.S.-Turkish bilateral
relationship and security cooperation. After all, Turkey has the
second largest standing military force in NATO after the United
States.
Lawmakers need to heed the advice of the eight former
Secretaries of State who have said, according to The New York
Times, that passing the resolution "could endanger our national
security interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation between
Turkey and Armenia."At the same time, Turkey's pro-Western secular
elites often supported causes unpopular with much of their
constituencies, including participation in the 1991 Gulf War
coalition. In turn, successive U.S. administrations supported
Turkey's bid for European Union membership and blocked a slew of
Armenian genocide resolutions in Congress. In short, Turkey was
seen as a staunch U.S. ally.
This perception began to change as Turkey's new conservative
religious elite, more suspicious of the West, began formulating a
different foreign policy, signaling that the U.S. may lose the
level of support from Turkey for its Middle East policies that it
had in the past. To wit, the Turkish Parliament failed to deliver a
crucial transit authorization of the U.S. 4th Armored Division to
move from Turkish Mediterranean ports to northern Iraq on the eve
of the 2003 Iraq War. This action, coupled with the growing
influence of the moderately Islamist AK Party and rapprochement
with Iran and the Muslim world, has dealt a blow to some Americans'
trust in Turkey as a key U.S. ally.
However, the bilateral relationship between the United States
and Turkey is still of vital importance to U.S. Middle East policy.
Turkey continues to play key roles in U.S.-led coalition efforts to
win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and may become an important
player in future efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons.
Blowback
Were the resolution to pass the full House, the consequences to
U.S. interests would be disastrous. When the French Parliament
voted in 2006 to make the denial of the Armenian genocide a crime,
Turkey responded by severing all military ties with France and
refused to contract numerous French companies.
An aide to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
already told Turkish media that Turkey may have to "cut logistical
support to the U.S." This is a serious threat. The Incirlik Air
Base in southern Turkey is a major cargo hub for U.S. and allied
forces going in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Seventy-four
percent of all air cargo and 25 percent of all fuel transit to Iraq
passes through this base. Additionally, C-17cargo planes delivering
military supplies to U.S. soldiers in Iraq fly through Incirlik to
avoid dangerous land convoy routes. Logistical support also
includes military overflights that support Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom. A cut in Turkish support to these
operations would severely cripple U.S. war efforts and permanently
damage relations with an important NATO ally.
Complicating matters, on October 17, the Turkish Parliament
voted 507-19 to authorize cross-border offensive strikes against
PKK Kurdish separatist rebels in northern Iraq. While selected
incursions into northern Iraq are not new, an increase in their
size and frequency can only have a destabilizing effect in what has
to date been a relatively peaceful region of Iraq. Further
consideration of the Armenian Genocide resolution would diminish
much-needed U.S. leverage in persuading Turkey to forbear
incursions into Iraq as it addresses the real and ongoing threat
posed to it by the PKK.
Conclusion
With war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the balance,
lawmakers should take care not to undermine vital and sensitive
American foreign policy goals. As House Minority Whip Roy Blunt
(R-MO) recently said, "Moving this disastrous bill to the House
floor would absolutely contradict that promise [to renew
longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security
interests] and demonstrate a wholesale lack of judgment on matters
related to foreign policy and national security."
Those who have criticized
the Bush administration for weakening America by alienating its
allies should recognize that this resolution would do just
that.
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is
Senior Research Fellow for The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies, Owen Graham is Research
Assistant for the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies, and Garrett Murch is House Relations Deputy for
Government Relations, at The Heritage Foundation.