While some argue that events like this must be seen as part of an annual ritual that is nothing out of the ordinary, others use harsher tones when expressing their criticism. I myself am not surprised by the outcome of the vote, although I was hoping for a different result. As a matter of fact, I was watching the ballots being cast, and there was a brief moment of relief when the count stated 20 in favor, 22 against. Not for long, though, did this trend continue, and we all know the final score.I wrote before about my suspicions on whether Barack Obama winning the last presidential election was as positive as proponents for a new relationship between Turkey and the United States had hoped for. The gist of my article was along the lines of “The Clintons are back.” Bill Clinton is still touring the globe and continues to make headlines, even more so since Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. This is not part of this week’s contribution. What worries me is that the Democratic Party unwaveringly supports the Armenian diaspora despite public statements by Mrs. Clinton that the word genocide should not be used and President Obama himself changing tactics recently and promising not to use the “g-word.” The litmus test is scheduled for April 24, the next anniversary of the much-discussed events of 1915.
A number of issues makes this year’s attempts to force Turkey to accept the fact that as far as America is concerned events in 1915 were genocide more relevant than ever before.
First, let us talk about the fact that the current US president in his own words believes in reconciliation between different religions and peoples. Second, we must make the assumption that America has realized that in a globalized world even Washington is better off having more friends and less foes. And finally, the centers of economic gravity are shifting eastwards, and a country like Turkey is the logical ally to bridge geopolitical as well as economic gaps.
All this should result in more trade between the two countries, more exchanges involving both civil societies and, of course, military and political cooperation. These subjects could then be translated into the blueprint for a true partnership of equals, not a model partnership where the bigger sister tells the younger sibling what is best for her and what is not.
In a nutshell: I am doubtful whether any form of so-called partnership with another qualitative term attached makes sense for the Turkey of the new millennium. When political actors feel the need to add labels, something is wrong. Think “privileged partnership” as suggested by German Chancellor Angela Merkel; now consider “model partnership” as stated by US President Obama. Other options would include “true partnership,” etc. A partner is a partner as far as I am concerned; the rest is playing to the gallery.
A leader of a political party or a party political group in parliament must have the right to ask fellow members to vote in line with what he or she says, which is in the interest of party discipline and in line with past election promises. Backtracking during a term is risky, to say the least, as voters may punish the party in question come time for the next election. The American system is somewhat more complicated, as often the president is faced by a hostile majority made up of the other party. This time, though, Obama has a very comfortable, “near majority” to work with.
Chances are that we will see the same debates until the year 2015 -- but is it not time to have the US president who, while defending his country’s interests and, of course, his core voters, show strong leadership skills and simply help lift this debate off the agenda? Both a new America -- much more integrated, less imposing -- and a new Turkey -- more influential, more respected on the global platform -- would benefit from it. Partners must act like partners -- no prefixes, suffixes or “add-ons” required; actions matter.
