Turkey has recalled its Ambassador from Washington ‘for discussions’. If you thought Pakistan was a crisis, it is a picnic compared to what is going on in Turkey. The crisis of relations between the civilian authorities and the military seemed settled, as far as international relations were concerned, when the military reluctantly accepted Gul as President. 

Unfortunately, a bunch of lobbyists with different motivations has managed to stir it all up again (as holier-than-thou ideologues are wont to do). If we seem harsh in our judgement, it is because brinkmanship may well, in this case, lead to a lot of dead men, women and children – and people who play with other people's lives to make an ideological point should always be a matter of suspicion.

The Casus Belli

There are now reports of ‘Turkish fury’ [Financial Times, October 12th] at the US Congressional vote labeling the slaughter of the Armenians under the Ottomans as a 'genocide'. The House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-21 in favour of the motion and US-Turkish (or rather US Democrat-Turkish) relations are now bouncing around at rock bottom as the ground is prepared for a full House vote on the matter. In fact, Washington (as an executive authority) and the Islamist Government of Turkey are working together to limit the crisis but this is a situation where internal political pressures in both countries are driving events.

To the Turks (and we have no links with the country), banning the 'lie' about genocide is no different from the Germans banning the 'lie' that the Jewish Holocaust did not take place. This is what happens when Governments try to impose the 'truth' through legislation - it sets a precedent. But Congress has shown an almost wilfully blind failure to understand the sensitive politics of this country that is so strategically important to regional peace and the security of Europe.

The use of the word ‘genocide’ implies a deliberate policy to destroy Armenian culture parallel to the Nazi war on the Jews and this is what is under dispute. And it gets complicated because Turkish attempts to explain the massive death rate of Armenians as a consequence of the disruption of war rather than of deliberate policy (which is not a proposition to be ignored, though we have no opinion) sounds horribly like German revisionists' attempts to minimise the death camp totals by referring to the same cause, logistical breakdown due to war rather than deliberate policy.  The truth is probably complex and ends up with the same result (many dead killed by their fellow humans) but while the deliberate policy of Nazi extermination is a fact accepted by all but fools, Turkish resentment lies in this comparison rather than a comparison closer to the ethnic massacres of contemporary Central Africa.  As we say, we can make no judgement.

However, the pressure of democratic system lobbyists in the US combined with the desire of congressional liberals to bloody the executive’s nose shows how ideologues of the liberal-left can be as destructive on sensible foreign policy decision-making as those of the radical neo-con right. Realists in Washington are slumped in their chairs in a state of despair, harried from the right and from the left.

Complexities

The context, of course, is multi-dimensional: within Turkey, we have the tense ideological struggle between the ‘conservative’ secular nationalist military and their business allies and the ‘differentially conservative’ Islamists who appear to have the backing of the people; externally, there are the aspirations of Turkey to become an accepted part of Europe and the military use of the PKK threat as stick to beat the Islamists into a radical nationalist position (on which issue alone the people appear to be with the militarists).

If you lob some dim or self-interested foreign liberals and the stirrings of two powers (one major in France and one minor in Armenia) whose machinations have got out of control, you have an explosive mix involving cynical US electoral politics, EU desperation to maintain its liberal standards in an expanding Europe, US strategic worries about losing Turkey both as ally (with all that this implies in terms of energy politics) and as logistical route into Iraq, and the survival of US mini-client state Iraqi Kurdistan.

Beyond this is the complex of post-imperial nationalities, once held together by the Ottomans, then by Soviet-ruled, militarized, authoritarian or Baathist states from Turkey through to Pakistan (until Iran appeared as the ‘wrong sort of democracy’ nearly thirty years ago). The collapse of the Soviet Union and then the destruction of Iraqi Baathism has created the opportunity for all hell to let loose - and it frequently has.

Any dreams of a democratic Iraq exporting human rights and the rule of law have long since been replaced by the need to contain ethnic dissolution and cleansing.  The obvious fear is that Turkish intervention in Iraq might improve the position of the hitherto pro-Western secular military inside Turkey but at the cost of opening up the regional Pandora’s Box sufficiently wide to let the bigger demons out. So, the Congressional vote is now linked to saber-rattling by the Turkish military that will need some concessions by the US on the ground in Iraq that, in themselves, may well destabilize its own Iraqi operation. Will we see the sudden discovery of the value of a policy peace and reconciliation towards the Kurds amongst the Turkish military – in yer dreams!

Military Demands

The military seems to be driving for an operation that will reassert their importance as guardians of the Turkish state and demonstrate their value to the civilian population. Threats of a Turkish incursion into Kurdistan have re-emerged because violence by the PKK has allegedly increased. We say 'allegedly' only because, as hardened cynics, we note that Press coverage of PKK atrocities should not be confused with the full reality on the ground – neither side are angels here and the coverage (as so often in the West), while real enough, is ‘spun’ for effect.  The effect is bitter Turkish national anger and demands for action.

The Muslim Government is having to follow the military-driven nationalist route regardless of the risks. The military know that the Islamists have won so much ground politically that they dare not push further against the military and not risk a 'coup'. After all, if the Europeans won't let Turkey join the EU within a reasonable time frame why not try the 'Algerian option' to deal with Islamism, Kurds and pinkos. Some extreme military ‘hawks’ are not averse to forcing the Islamists into some sort of humiliation that might permit a coup 'in the interests of Turkey’ (though there is no evidence that this is mainstream military thinking by any means).

The Prime Minister and anti-terrorism officials have now made tough statements that indicate an incursion into Iraq is not out of the question. 100,000 Turks are now massed on the Iraq border. Despite all this, there was still no sign that Parliament was ready to concede the army the right to act until now (beyond a blind eye to special ops, whose details you almost certainly do not want to know if you are eating your breakfast). The Congressional Committee vote has increased pressure on Parliament to create the necessary enabling powers. Once passed, any actual move against the PKK is down to the balance of power between the Islamist executive and the military - and that is when the real bargaining begins.

Europeans Confuse Things Further ...

The Europeans are sending strong signals that an incursion would not be welcome in any negotiations to join the EU (a signal to the military’s business allies) and that human rights violations arising from the conflict with the PKK are very much a matter of concern (though asserting that the PKK is, indeed, a terror organization). The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled against Sunni domination of Muslim education in Turkey.

But, thanks to French obsessional (no, neurotic) fear of Muslim political influence in Europe, ‘real’ European influence in Turkey is at a low ebb (though intriguingly less so with the military) – the irony being that the Islamist elite is moderate and wants to be part of Europe! French intransigence about Turkish accession and support for the Armenians not only threatens certain European expansionist dreams (so what, we may say!), it also threatens to promote a militarized authoritarian regime the size of Germany. 

To extend the worst case scenario, Turkey may well fall into the ‘resistance’ camp, on Europe's South-Eastern border, and unravel the key alternative route for energy to those that come direct from Russia – oh, and, of course, provide Europe with a massive refugee crisis if ever Northern Iraq becomes a war front or the Turkish military try Algerian military tactics against the defeated Islamists.  None of this is actually on the cards by any means but it seems irresponsible to encourage policies that make them more likely.  Of course, equally (and this may be the French view), a secular republican Turkey might be a conveniently strong militarised state acting as protective barrier for 'Christian civilisation' - much like the series of strong 'republican' states like Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt that keeps Islam at bay to Europe's south.

And American Own Goals

Meanwhile, some Congressional figures ignore all this reality and the pleadings of the Administration. Bush can sometimes be right, you know. But to hell with the Europeans, these Congressmen might say. And yet 70% of US air cargo going into Iraq goes through Turkey.  In the unlikely event that Turkey closed US access to the airbase and to Turkish airspace, the US military effort in Iraq is 'screwed'. 

Congress appears to be mounting a spectacular own goal against a key ‘realist’ ally and if there is some mad idea that this will help end the war in Iraq, Democrat election hopes might not do so well if they can be pointed to as having engineered a 'stab in the back' for US troops fighting their way out to the south with their allies already half-scuttled home.

Less mainstream reports tell us that US, Saudi, Jordanian and Turkish intelligence have tended to collaborate rather than compete recently on regional stabilization issues – all have an interest in suppressing insurgents and in containing Iran. Turkey, under Gul, has to some extent offered its military and Turkish nationalists an alternative focus in a revived role as a Middle Eastern regional power. But US participation in this classic State Department 'pivotal state' strategy seems to be falling apart: US efforts to get some collaboration on dealing with the PKK are alleged to be in a somewhat chaotic state.

The Lobbyists

So, this is a right old mess.  Armenia and Armenians cannot be blamed for wanting recognition for what was done to them. But it is only useful if it has the effect on Turkey that Jewish pain has on democratic Germany – a guilt that requires reconciliation and has the perpetrators’ ancestors bending over backwards (almost beyond reason in the German-Israeli case) to make recompense. Tactically, the onslaught has simply stiffened Turkish spines and made it harder for Muslim moderates to out-manoevre military hardliners and extreme nationalists.

The Armenians’ worst enemies may be their friends – the wealthy Armenian diaspora and the French, who may well have been stoking up the genocide issue as a means of keeping Turkey out of the EU. Of course, we know that it is the French Socialists who drove the story in the French Assembly but the liberal internationalist agenda of some socialists and of Kouchnerism are really not so very far apart, any more than are some versions of radical anti-Islamism and right-wing US Democrat thinking - or Atlanticist Tory neo-con and Blairite attitudes - are in conflict.  The cynical operations of French and other ‘psychological warfare’ operations have now placed ‘reconciliation’ in jeopardy – as well as American interests in the region. To equate Turks with Nazis would have a devastating effect on US-Turkish relations yet it might suit Paris insofar as it has already gone down that route and it has its own relationship with Turkish secular republicanism. 

Such tactics embarrass those Turks who might want improved ties with Armenia. In fact, Turkish-Armenian relations and reconciliation have been progressing (albeit slowly) at grassroots level. Turkey and Armenia do not have diplomatic relations and Armenia officially supports the efforts of the lobbyists. However, air links between the two have been restored and the politics are confused further in that it is the Muslim Turks who seem to be interested in diplomatic ties. Their moves are being resisted by – you guessed it – the hard boys in the military and by the Azeris.

We have, incidentally, noted many congruences between French and US Democrat interests on more than one occasion during the so-called ‘war on terror’. Without engaging in conspiracy theory, this is an area worth investigating further by analysts of political warfare operations. However, it is equally true that, as in the Israeli case, diaspora Armenians (like Jews and Irish) have tended to be much more aggressively nationalistic than the people they have left behind – who have usually moved on and adopted a more pragmatic approach to history.  Nancy Pelosi has many rich Armenians in her constituency.

This diaspora radicalism is paralleled inside Turkey. Nationalist attacks on those who support the Armenian position are said to be stoked up by military and security elements. The repeal or amendment of Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code (which forbids mention of the Armenian tragedy as a genocide) would help. We learn that it is Muslim President Gul who seems to be favourable to this. The fact that Turkey’s Islamists are the moderates and may have the same strategic interest as the US military against the Turkish military is a bitter-sweet irony of history.

A Malign Conjunction of Political Planets

So the French, Armenian ‘hawks’, US Democrats and an authoritarian Turkish military (and their Azeri allies) are in a somewhat unfortunate accidental alliance to use (without clearly intending the outcome) the deaths of many thousands nearly a hundred years ago to keep Turkey out of the West and sustain the interests of those Turks in favour of militarism and war. The supporters of conciliation and improved Turkish-Armenian relations are, admittedly in a rather desultory way, the Turkish Muslims whose interests coincide almost precisely (on this point) with the American national interest.

It is for another place and time to trace how we ever got into this mess but rejecting Turkish aspirations to become truly European, failing to recognise that there can be something called Islamist democracy that is not a contradiction in terms, allowing American democracy excessive influence over the detail of American foreign policy and, of course, over-turning Baathist Iraq for a poorly planned and resourced programme of regional democratization must all be at the top of the list. I think I have just described a malign conjunction of neo-conservative and French policies ... Let us hope that the diplomats can sort this out in the next few days and weeks … as always, we are optimistic when matters are left to the professionals.