MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Maria Appakova) - This week the Turkish parliament will have to decide whether or not its government should approve a cross-border military operation to chase separatist Kurdish rebels who operate from bases in northern Iraq.
The Turkish parliament will most likely vote in favor of the operation.
The decision will be made at a time when Turkey's relations with the United States are worsening. On October 10, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a measure calling the massacre of Armenians in World War I by Ottoman Turks genocide by a 27-21 margin.
This measure will prevent Washington, at least in the short term, from stopping Ankara's attempt to unleash one more conflict in the Middle East.
Discussions of Turkey's military operation in Iraq and the vote in U.S. Congress on the Armenian genocide coincided in time, but it could just be a coincidence. The two issues have been on the respective agendas for a long time, and the decisions were long due.
Turkey's parliament is ready to act because the military arm of the Kurdistan Workers Party attacked the Turkish military again, killing 13.
The Justice and Development Party, which won the summer elections in Turkey, cannot disappoint its voters by leaving the matter unattended. This would play into the hands of its political rivals, primarily the military, who were against selecting the country's president from among members of the party.
The current Turkish leadership should avoid quarrelling with the military, especially because it intends to carry out political reforms in the country.
Likewise, the approval of the measure on Armenian genocide in the U.S was a political decision made before the upcoming elections. The Democrats, who initiated the measure, needed a bold political move, as well as the support of the numerous and influential Armenian diaspora.
Although it is true that Armenians were massacred in 1915, we must admit that current decisions on the genocide and infringements on the rights of nations were made exclusively for political reasons. The issues of human rights and freedom of religion have become win-win topics.
All countries are doing this, but Washington is the loudest advocate of political morals and human rights. Unfortunately, its actions do not always support its words, as exemplified by disputes over the Armenian genocide resolution.
President George W. Bush said several hours before the voting: "Its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror." He said that Turkey is a moderately Muslim country and a NATO member crucial for the transit of U.S. shipments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Did he mean that his administration would not protest against such a resolution if it were passed about a non-moderate Islamic country that is not an ally-and especially not a strategic ally-of the United States?
Bush has said more than once that genocide is a subject for historians, not lawmakers. But what about Serbia, Iraq and Sudan, where the issue was-and still is, in the case of Sudan-not yet decided by historians?
His press service has expressed surprise that lawmakers concern themselves with history when there are so many current acute problems awaiting solution. This brings to mind what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to serve as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said on the issue of Armenian genocide.
Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference that congressional resolutions on Armenian genocide have been put off, with various justifications, over the past 20 years.
There is never a good time to acknowledge that genocide has taken place, Pelosi added, whether in the distant past or the present.
Turkey is vital for U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East and the Black Sea region. Therefore it is believed that the House's resolution has harmed U.S. foreign policy interests.
The planned Turkish operation in Iraq is not the most harmful aspect of the situation, but rather Turkey's possible refusal to allow American military planes to fly in its air space and use the Turkish air force base. Overall, the honest decision made by the U.S. House may curtail bilateral military relations.
The United States and Turkey will not sever relations, of course, but the resolution may prevent Washington from convincing Turkey to abandon its plans of a cross-border military operation in Iraq.
Yet the resolution is not the only stumbling block in bilateral relations. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that Ankara does not need anyone to tell it what to do in Iraq, because the United States did not ask anyone's advice when it deployed its troops there in 2003.
The Turkish government has asked parliament for a 12-month permit to launch a military operation in Iraq. This means that it can send its troops to Iraq any time within a year, or not at all, using the permit to put pressure on Washington, Baghdad and leaders of Iraqi Kurdistan.
Also, in late September Turkey and Iraq signed an agreement on cooperation in the war on terror and agreed to remove from its text the clause about the "right of hot pursuit." If Ankara wants to maintain good relations with Baghdad, it should give Iraq a chance to fulfill the agreement before taking such drastic decisions.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
