The butterfly effect

When electioneering in February 2000, George W. Bush appealed to the Armenian diaspora in the USA by confirming that between 1915 and 1917 they 'were subjected to a genocidal campaign... an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity.' He went on to pledge: 'If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.'

The intervening years have shown that these words to be mere appeasement. In subsequent speeches, he has tiptoed away from genocide, preferring instead to describe the 'infamous killings' and the 'tragedy'. This week, a US congressional committee voted to define the actions of the Ottoman Turks as genocidal, but President Bush opposed the resolution. He was joined by all eight living secretaries of state, from Kissinger to Rice. This standpoint would appear to polarise the USA; last year the French parliament passed a bill not only acknowledged the genocide, but made its denial illegal.*

Yet whilst Armenians can legitimately feel betrayed by the Bush administration, and while there is little doubt in the West that the actions of the Ottomans match the 1948 UN definition of a genocide, the president has still made the right decision to distance himself from the resolution. Modern Turkey has still not come to terms with 1915 (witness the January murder of journalist Hrant Dink) and no other subject remains as guaranteed to cause offence. Congress has shown a breathtakingly bad sense of timing to return to a hostile topic at a time when Turkey has become increasingly important (and isolated) as a US ally in the Middle East. As much as 75 per cent of US air traffic en route to Iraq passes through Turkish airspace and its ships are a frequent sight in Turkish ports. Were these privileges to end, it would be the Iraqis - an entirely separate nation - that suffer the most.

More dangerously still, the Turkish government this week gave the go-ahead for military activity in northern Iraq to pursue rebel Kurds responsible for the recent murders of 15 Turkish soldiers. The US is desperate for Turkey to stay out of Iraq to avoid destabilising one of the country's few settled areas. Add to this the fact that the inspiration for the recent PKK activism has been the greater freedom enjoyed by Iraqi Kurds as a result of the invasion by the US and the reason for Turkish unhappiness becomes clear. Turkey's PM, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has thus far showed admirable neutrality towards both Armenia and Iraq, but he may decide that continued support for the US is too politically dangerous, even for a government with a healthy majority. A recent poll showed that as few as 10 per cent of Turks have a favourable opinion of the US.

For the Armenians living in the US, it is 2000 all over again. Once again they are being wooed by the political opposition, who recognise the potential of an additional million votes come winter 2008. Undoubtedly, the true extent of the Armenian suffering should be recognised, but Congress has badly misplaced its sense of timing, the consequences of which may be felt most grievously by the people of Iraq.

*The Economist also highlighted the absurdity of an EU where denial genocide is illegal in France and mention of it forbidden in Turkey. A thoroughly convincing account of why the events of 1915-7 constitute a genocide is provided by chapter 10 (pp 388-436) of Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation (Harper, 2005).