US-Turkey row

Joost Lagendijk is a senior advisor at the Istanbul Policy Center. From 1998 to 2009 he was a member of the European Parliament for the Dutch Greens. Lagendiijk chaired the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee between 2004 and 2009.

Deutsche Welle: Turkey immediately recalled its ambassador from Washington in protest over the vote of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that labels Turkey's massacre of Armenians a genocide and warned of further negative consequences for US-Turkish relations. What other measures could Turkey take to protest against the resolution?

Joost Lagendijk: What has happened in the past, because we have been here before, is that Turkey threatend to stop cooperating with the US in Afghanistan or even went as far as threatening not to allow the Americans to use Turkish air bases which the Americans will have to do when they withdraw from Iraq. So there are all kinds of issues that the Turks could threaten to put pressure on the Americans.

The US also needs Turkey's support in the UN Security Council for tougher sanctions on Iran. Do you think that Turkey is in fact prepared to carry out all those threats?

In the case of Iran, it's the US putting pressure on Turkey. There are rumors that Obama might say to Turkey that he is willing to disregard the Foreign Affairs resolution if and when Turkey votes with the US in the Security Council in favor of sanctions against Iran. So there is pressure being exerted from both sides.

The US wants Turkey on its side on Iran and one way of doing that is saying if you vote with us, we will not do what the House committee wants us to do as has happened in the past. Threatening of course, that if Turkey doesn't vote with the US in the Security Council, Obama might go all the way and do what the Foreign Affairs Committee wants him to do.

The Obama administration is in a difficult situation regarding the genocide resolution. During his campaign Barack Obama said that as president he would recognize the genocide, but shortly before the vote the administration warned that the bill's passage could severely damage relations with an important NATO ally. As in the past, the White House could pressure the House Speaker to not send the resolution to the full House for a final vote. Do you think Obama should and could intervene like that?

I guess in the end he will because in the next couple of months the Obama administration will need Turkey mainly to organize a proper withdrawal from Iraq. The best and quickest way do to so is through Turkish airbases.

That is probably the reason why the Obama administration in the end will do what the Bush and Clinton adminstrations did, saying please don't take it to the floor, please don't vote on it in the full House because it could get us into trouble with Turkey. I guess they will as a result of serious arm-twisting by Turkey with its threats to withold support from the American withdrawal from Iraq.

In the end, when Turkey votes with the US in the Security Council, I think Obama will decide not to push it and will ask the speaker of the House not to allow a full vote.

In most countries, the image of the US has improved dramatically since Barack Obama took office, but not in Turkey. Why is that and how will this vote effect Turkish feelings about the US?

It's true that in opinion polls one of the countries where the US is most unpopular is Turkey. It's pretty amazing the extent to which there is this anti-American feeling. Obama as a person is relatively popular, especially compared to his predecessor Mr. Bush of course, but the US as such is still quite unpopular. Most people think it has to do with the invasion of Iraq by the US. The fact that at that point in 2003 Turkey did not want to cooperate caused serious problems at that moment in time.

But it's hard to explain the extent to which this unpopularity remains and to be honest I haven't read any really satisfactory explanation apart from the invasion of Iraq. Compared to the popularity of the US 10 or 15 years ago, there is a quite dramatic change that still needs a proper explanation.

The Armenian genocide resolution is not new in Turkish-American relations, but comes up regularly in Congress. To an outsider, Turkey always seems very defensive and hard-line on the issue. It's parliament still hasn't ratified a peace accord with Armenia. Couldn't it take a lot of steam out of the issue, if it was perceived as more proactive and open about reconciliation with Armenia?

Definitely. I agree with those who criticize Turkey for slowing down this whole process that they started themselves with Armenia last year. The Turkish government signed with the Armenian government these protocols that would establish normal diplomatic ties, that would open the borders and, what is important for the current issue, would set up a committee of historians to look into the tragic events of 1915 to establish what really happened.

Had those protocols been ratified already by the Turkish parliament, I am sure that we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in now. So yes, it's true the Turkish government should have pushed more and should have used its majority in the Turkish parliament to go for ratification.

Unfortunately, there is a traditional link now made by the government between ratifying these protocols and solving the Nagorno-Karabach issue (disputed region in Azerbaijan, populated mainly by ethnic Armenians - ed.).

I think it's an unhealthy link and I hope that this situation will also bring some more pressure on Turkey to be more forthcoming. If these protocols had been signed, the relations between Turkey and Armenia would have improved, and I am almost sure that the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives would not have voted on a resolution like this.

Interview: Michael Knigge
Editor: Rob Mudge