AMERICAN RESOLUTION IN ARMENIAN LANGUAGE

The adoption by the U.S. Senate of a resolution recognising the so-called Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire was yet another step that escalated the U.S.-Turkish relations. The U.S. raised the Armenian issue again to demonstrate its unshakable commitment to protect the national interests on the international stage.

Why now?

After repeated delays, the Senate adopted the infamous resolution no.150 on the recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide. In late October, the House of Representatives adopted the document as well.

The resolution was adopted by American congressmen despite Ankara’s repeated calls to create an international commission of historians to ensure an objective study of the tragic events. However, the U.S. and the West continue blaming Turkey in 'genocide', which only confirms that for the world powers are interested in the "Armenian issue", like a century ago, only to achieve their current and long-term geopolitical goals.

In this case, this involves the pressure on Turkey, which is consistently protecting its national interests in the most difficult conditions of global politics in the 21st century. With this in mind, the pro-Armenian resolution of the Congress is not only the fruit of the efforts of the Armenian diaspora and individual American politicians closely associated with it. The Capitol approved the document at the very moment when relations between Ankara and Washington deteriorated more than ever and were going through a serious test of strength. In other words, the resolution is nothing more but an unambiguous message from the American political elite of Ankara to demonstrate the U.S.'s dissatisfaction with certain actions of Turkey, especially in the Middle East, and to punish Turkey for the attitude that makes Washington unhappy. Yet it is not clear why the U.S. itself does not agree to take into account the interests of its close regional ally, Turkey, on a whole range of vital problems.

Allies or opponents?

The U.S. is trying to punish Turkey primarily for its cooperation with Russia. Thus, Turkey, together with Russia, as well as Iran, is trying to end the long-standing war in Syria on the basis of sovereignty and territorial integrity of this Arab country. That is why Ankara thwarted attempts to create a pro-American Kurdish state in the northern regions of Syria controlled by terrorist groups, which directly threatened the security of Turkey.

Washington does not particularly welcome the military-technical cooperation between Ankara and Moscow, namely the purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems. By the way, previously Turkey had tried to purchase American systems Patriot instead, albeit unsuccessfully. Washington refused to sell Patriots to Ankara but changed its mind soon after Turkey finally acquired S-400s from Russia, provided that Ankara curtails any strategic cooperation with Moscow. Turkey expressed its readiness to buy Patriot systems because, as President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated, "we want to diversify our air defence systems." But at the same time, Ankara considers the purchase of Russian S-400s a closed issue, which provoked the U.S. to impose sanctions on Turkey, otherwise used as restrictive measures against enemy countries, not allies.

In line with the legislative process, the Congress proposed the Trump administration to impose sanctions on Ankara for the purchase of the S-400 and military operation in northern Syria. The document limited the sale of U.S. weapons to Turkey and imposed restrictions against its officials responsible for the supply of weapons for the military operation of Ankara in Syria. President Trump signed the military budget for year 2020 based on a plan that prohibits the supply of fifth-generation F-35 fighters to Turkey, as agreed with the Congress and the U.S. Department of Defence.

Meanwhile, the list of reasons causing U.S. discontent and, accordingly, used by them as an excuse to apply new sanctions against Turkey, also included the construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Turkey through the Black Sea. As expected, the Turkish Stream will be officially launched in Istanbul on January 8, and Washington have already warned Turkey about sanctions. It was so obvious that the Turkish President Erdogan was forced to react in his usual emotional manner: "They should be ashamed to scare us with sanctions because of the Turkish Stream. This is a complete violation of our rights." Nevertheless, Erdogan has reason to make sharp statements. After all, the anti-Turkish sanctions introduced by Washington comply with the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which means that the U.S. officially regards Turkey as an adversary. What kind of response does Washington expect from Ankara in this case?

Adequate response

Ankara has made it clear that it would not succumb to American pressure and would take steps in response to anti-Turkish sanctions and decisions that might seriously affect U.S. strategic influence in the Middle East.

Turkey has expressed its readiness to close two American airbases on its territory (Incirlik and Kürecik), if Washington continues to implement the sanctions policy. The Incirlik airbase located near the Turkish border with Syria plays an instrumental role in the U.S. military operations in the Middle East. It is even possible that tactical nuclear weapons are deployed at the airbase, according to the leaked information about at least fifty nuclear warheads. Kürecik airbase is close to the Iranian border and is of great importance for American tracking the defence potential of Tehran.

In addition, Turkey considers Russian Su fighters (Su-35 and fifth-generation Su-57) as an alternative to American F-35s. Washington's refusal to supply these fighters to Ankara will make no good but strengthen the strategic partnership between Turkey and Russia.

As for the pro-Armenian resolution, President Erdogan announced the possibility of a Turkish response to this hostile U.S. move. Condemning the politicisation and distortion of historical issues, he recalled such a "black spot" in the history of the U.S. as the mass extermination of the indigenous population of America, the Indians. According to Erdogan, the U.S. does not have any moral right to accuse other states of 'genocide', especially since it has no scientific basis. Yet it is the generally recognised the mass extermination of Indians took place in North America during the European colonisation of the continent. Ankara warned Washington about the possibility of the adoption of relevant document by the Turkish parliament.

 New Year's gift to the Armenian lobby

The pro-Armenian resolution has undoubtedly become a gift for the Armenian lobby, which has more than a dosen Capitol members in its service. Adam Schiff, Robert Menendez, Jackie Speer, Frank Pallone, Tulsi Gabbard, Brad Sherman and a number of other congressmen have achieved political heights thanks largely to support from the American Armenian diaspora. This entire company regularly comes forward with initiatives and bills that meet the interests of Armenia and the world Armenians, even though they often conflict with the U.S. policies in the international arena.

These politicians deliberately undermine the allied relations between the U.S. and Turkey. By the way, they are trying to curtail the strategic partnership between the U.S. and Azerbaijan too. Of course, it's in the interests of the Armenians, for speaking against increasing American military assistance to Azerbaijan, Adam Schiff, Robert Menendez and company also advocate the increase of military assistance to Armenia.

Is it worth the cost?

Certainly, the pro-Armenian resolution of the U.S. Congress would not have been the main reason for such drastic turn in the U.S.-Turkish relations. After all, the resolution is not a law due to its declarative nature. The Trump administration rejected the Senate resolution either. The U.S. State Department stated that "the position of the U.S. administration is unchanged" and that the historical events of 1915 continue to be considered precisely as "massacres". However, in parallel with other recent anti-Turkish decisions of American authorities, it confirms that Washington's attitude toward Ankara is increasingly unfriendly. Essentially, this means Washington's revision of its policy towards Turkey, and, of course, Ankara will not leave this change in the American course unanswered.

On the other hand, Ankara would not want to upset allied relations with the U.S., as it had demonstrated over many years of intensive attempts to convince Washington of considering Turkish interests on a number of important issues, such as the Syrian-Kurdish issue. Repeated gestures and statements of Turkish authorities should have demonstrated Ankara's commitment to allied relations with Washington both at the bilateral level and within NATO. However, do the U.S. authorities read them appropariately? Alas, but often the powers generously rewarded (at least politically) by the Armenian diaspora have the last word in the U.S. Contrary to the strategic interests of the U.S., these powers are consistently destroying the foundation of friendship and alliance with one of the influential powers of Eurasia, Turkey.