Opinion

Diplomatic offensive needed, not offensive diplomacy

First, to give a little of our biases - well, backgrounds - we are a daughter of a Holocaust survivor and a citizen of the first country to open an embassy with Armenia (France) and both strong supporters of human rights. That being said, why would two international relations scholars not usually supportive of the Bush administration's foreign policies strongly oppose the "Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution House Resolution 106"?

Because the United States is at war - whether we like it or not.

The United States has two active military operations in the region of Turkey and Iraq, scant supporters and mixed success. Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, our relationship with several of our traditional allies has been strained. Additionally, opposition groups have gained funding as well as local support. This can be documented through shifts in voting records, polls and blogs in the Western world as well as in the Middle East.

Among our allies in the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has heavily relied on the Turks, our NATO partners. The Turks have let the American forces use their territory as forward-operating bases and supply routes. More importantly, the Turks are working alongside American troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO. Conversely, we have developed a productive alliance with the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, the most stable part of that country since 2003. This is the crux of the problem in a nutshell.

The Turks do not want to see an independent Kurdistan, which would include the Iraqi region of Kirkuk. This area is rich in oil and water that could become a legitimate political platform for the Kurdistan Workers Party or as it is known the PKK (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan). Meanwhile, the Kurds as well as the rest of the Iraqi groups, be they Sunni or Shiite, fear direct involvement by Turkey will occur in the region if the PKK continue their insurgency. Oh, and then there's that little thorny issue of past history - both the Persian and the Ottoman empires have laid claims to Iraq and there is certainly still an emotional link for both countries regarding this territory.

This is why the situation has reached a level of strategic urgency. Turkey is already in hot pursuit of PKK members designated as terrorists in northern Iraq and has moved to legalize a full-fledged military incursion based on the inherent sovereign right of self-defense, which is legal under international law.

The potential of military conflict between Iraq and Turkey over the Kurdish issue should push the United States to employ the utmost in diplomatic finesse (not that that has been our strong suit lately) in dealing with all the groups with vested interests in the region. HR106 antagonizes the Turks. Indeed, the Turkish Chief General, Yasar Buyukanit, said in the Turkish press on Oct. 17, "Whether we want it or not, if the bill is approved at the Congress, it is not possible for our military relations to be same as before." (www.Turkishpress.com)

As a result, the Turkish government has said it will feel compelled to cut off supply routes to Iraq and Afghanistan and potentially limit Turkish support for U.S. interests in NATO. If these consequences aren't dire enough, the resolution could also have the long-term impact of permanently harming our strategic partnership with the West-friendly Turkish democracy. And, to top it off, there is the issue of oil and water access and pipeline routes in the area, which are strategically vital resources.

As President Bush stated and we emphatically agree, "We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror."

Meanwhile, the resolution while legally, ethically and morally accurate, doesn't offer much more than a rhetorical acknowledgment of horrific acts committed on Armenians. If doing the right thing at the wrong time is considered courageous, then some might say that we are offering a cowardly opinion. Ultimately, what needs to be understood is if we do this for domestic political reasons, then people on the ground in our military operations overseas could get hurt. Is it morally right to potentially put in harms way our troops currently engaged in combat?

It is not the right time in the United States, and perhaps not even the right venue, for this human tragedy to be given a proper reckoning.