Russian analyst: U.S. House committee's decision is a signal for Turkey

What is your assessment of the move by the U.S. Congress House Committee on Foreign Relations to adopt the resolution recognizing the so-called “Armenian genocide?”

Armenia long sought to have various countries to recognize the "genocide". Admittedly, they succeeded in some countries. But everything is increasingly difficult in the U.S. The whole process runs very hard in the country. One can not link this issue with the way in which relationship runs between the strategic allies like Washington and Ankara. The U.S. understands that it is very difficult to implement various projects in the Middle East without Turkey's support.

Therefore, the possible adoption of a final decision on the "genocide" will complicate the relations between Ankara and Washington. It must be borne in mind that, on one hand, the Armenian lobby has significant pressure on the U.S. government, on the other hand, Barack Obama once openly supported the project of "genocide" in the past.

However, here it is worth noting that the decision in the United States is made not by one person. The vote in Congress and the Senate is made in a batch mode. Thus, if a senator or congressman once voted in favor of a project, it does not mean that he would support it in the future. So, the question is still open.

This decision by the Committee of Congress may be a kind of signal by Americans for Turks, since the U.S. is very careful in making such decisions. The final decision on the "genocide" would be a very serious step for Washington, because in this case it would endanger Americans' position in Turkey.

In your opinion, will the Congress adopt this resolution finally?

Sooner or later this issue will continue to emerge at various levels of government and parliament in the United States. Much will depend on what shape relations between Turkey and the U.S. will take. The relations between the two countries have not been unequivocal lately. We can recall attitude of Ankara and Washington on the Kurdish issue in Iraq. Disagreements cooled their relations, but later the question seemed to be resolved. I do not exclude that issue of "genocide" will be resolved in favor of Armenians in the United States in distant future.

Do you think, facing a choice between adoption of the resolution and relations with Turkey, the U.S. preferred the first one harming political, economic and also military ties with Turkey?

Americans can sometimes do irrelevant things in respect of different states. It puts much on stake  without thinking not worrying about the consequences. Let’s recall the history of missile defense in Eastern Europe. The U.S. desire to deploy radar in the Czech Republic and Poland posed very big problems.

However, all of a sudden the U.S. wanted to deploy these radars in other countries. Of course, allies are very important for the U.S. and Turkey is the key state in the region. Islamic factor and military cooperation are also involved here. However, they can afford sophisticated solutions to complex issues. There is much influence exerted on the U.S. government. It is hard to do this, but the country is under pressure from all sides. So, the resolution can be adopted in distant future.

It is possible that Moscow benefited from this situation most of all boosting relations with Turkey who is offended at the U.S. …

I think the main point is not cooperation with the United States or Russia. The situation is much more complicated. Final and serious quarrel are beneficial neither to Washington nor Ankara. Both Turkey and Russia are aware of importance of bilateral cooperation. Possibly, Turkey will begin a rapprochement with Russia as an exemplary measure, in order to spite the United States. The U.S. will be nervous about it, because it wants Ankara to remain in its area of influence. However, I do not think that this will lead to fundamental change in the balance of forces in the region.

As a doctor of psychology, can you explain the reasons why recognition of "Armenian Genocide" is so important to the neighboring country? Is this recognition really part of the recognition of national identity, or this is a fixed idea of individuals in the government?

In any ethnic conflict some painful aspects later become a symbol of the nation, then pass on generations until they are solved. Speaking of conflict science as part of psychology, I can say that discussions over such problems are always painful, but it is very necessary to eventually solve the problem.

The question of “genocide" is very important for a country like Armenia, but in this case, it is often politicized and used by politicians.


H. Hamidov