Gambit (from "dare il gambetto" – to trip up [Ital.])
is the general definition of chess openings
in which pieces are sacrificed
for a more rapid development of the game
A TRIPPING FOR GEORGE W.BUSH
On October 11, US House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted Resolution 106, condemning the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 in Turkey as genocide. It may seem strange that the draft surfaced ninety two years after the first massive ethnic cleansing of the XX century. However, H.Res.106 suggests serious implications in the political affairs of the region where George W. Bush's administration had launched an infamous war.
The confrontment between the US legislative powers, dominated by the Democratic Party, with George W. Bush's Republican Administration, has entered a new phase which could be identified as a gambit. Failing to force Bush to pull out the troops from Iraq and even to slash financing of the war, the Democratic majority selected a very efficient indirect lever to affect the White House, though hardly calculating long-term implications. Tripping over this hidden stone, laid by his political opponents, George W. Bush may damage not only his nose (which already happened without any assistance from political rivals when he rode a bike).
The White House fears that the ostensibly harmless resolution, if passed by the Congress, may trigger a full-scale crisis in NATO, and contribute to the deterioration of an already very complicated situation in Iraq, as well as, indirectly, to the current stock market panic (with a new astronomic hike of world oil prices).
Though the fact of genocide of Armenians in Turkey is well known, the circumstances of this tragic episode of the times of World War I should be addressed in details for better understanding of the current situation.
One of the major results of World War I was the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which consolidated in the XVI century, to be heavily battered in the Russian-Turkish wars of the XIX century and the related Balkan wars. The purpose of the 1915 massacre was to exterminate the indigenous Armenian population of Northern Turkey. This population was Christian and generally pro-Russian, while in World War I, Turkey fought on the side of Germany. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal, once the leader of the revolutionary Young Turks, later War Minister of Turkey and eventually the first President of the Turkish Republic under the title of Ataturk, established political relations with Soviet Russia; at the same time, Moscow re-established the statehood of Armenia in the USSR framework (which eventually acquired independence in 1991).
The fact of genocide of Armenians is officially recognized by a number of nations including France, Italy, Belgium, Russia, Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, Uruguay, and Lithuania. Resolutions, recognizing the massacre as genocide, have also been adopted by the House of Commons of Canada, the National Council of Switzerland, and the Sejm of Poland. The categorical reluctance of Turkey to admit the historical reality is widely denounced by many nations. Political leaders draw parallels with the Holocaust of Jews during World War II, demanding that Ankara follow the example of Germany's rejection of the Nazi practice.
A global-scale political debate, rising after the Foreign Affairs Committee's decision and involving several nations, revealed a whole sequence of unresolved international contradictions, and seriously affecting the reputation of leaders who had made adherence to moral principles a part of their political image. Essentially, Realpolitik has overwhelmed the issues of historical truth, human rights, and international law.
The sincerity of intentions of US Democrats is highly doubtful, as they could well foresee the major implication of their initiative. At the same time, the reaction of the Republicans is even less morally justifiable. On the eve of the vote in the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Bush administration was speaking exceptionally of interests, as a superior matter to any moral obligations and historical truth. George W. Bush bluntly warned that the vote could lead to Turkey cutting off crucial supply lines to Iraq. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said ahead of the vote that 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about one-third of the fuel used by the U.S. military in Iraq. "Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes, and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will", Gates said.
After these warnings were ignored by the House Committee, the White House launched a frantic effort to prevent the vote on Resolution 106 in full House. Eventually, four of the Resolution’s sponsors agreed to postpone the vote in the full House for an unidentified term.
Trying to explain himself before the Armenian community, a nervous Bush intoned that though "we all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915", Resolution 106 "is not the right response to those historic mass killings".
The argument was elaborated in the remarks of a more eloquent State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "The United States recognizes the immense suffering of the Armenian people due to mass killings and forced deportations at the end of the Ottoman Empire", McCormack said. "We support a full and fair accounting of the atrocities that befell as many as 1.5 million Armenians during World War I, which H. Res. 106 does not do". Still, the central point explicitly referred to interests: McCormack emphatically expressed concern that passage of the resolution "would gravely harm U.S.-Turkish relations and U.S. interests in Europe and the Middle East".
What "full and fair accounting" was the White House speaking about? After 92 years, only a few living witnesses of the massacre could be found, though hardly physically able to testify. What prevented the United States from initiating a relevant tribunal yet before the Nuremberg Trials?
Or, maybe, the White House is referring to the responsibility of today's leadership of Turkey, which keeps reluctant to recognize the obvious fact of history? From the statements of White House’s officials, one can't figure it out.
A VALUABLE ALLY
The answer is on the surface: the geopolitical interests of the United States suggest a strategic partnership with Turkey – of a kind which forgives brutality, not speaking of any misbehavior like gross violation of the North Atlantic Treaty by the Turkish side.
In accordance with the preamble of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in Washington on April 4, 1949, "the Parties of the Treaty are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” In the history of the Turkish Republic, one military coup followed another, the parliament being dissolved, while oppression of political opponents has become routine. No sane person would recognize the domestic policy of Turkish leaders in 1950-1970s as "founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law". However, this did not prevent Turkey's entry into NATO on February 18, 1952. Even the military coup of 1960, when Menderes was ousted from power with his cabinet, did not shake Turkey's status as a partner of the international organization which promised to "safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization" of its peoples.
And what about Turkey's occupation of Cyprus in 1974 which nearly led to a full-scale war between two NATO members? Why didn't it raise the issue of Turkey's compliance with Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty which urged the members "to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations"?
Has the United States ever denounced Turkish officials for almost open assistance to Chechen terrorists, including misprision of warlords, as well as military, organizational and financial support of the regimes of Dzhokhar Dudayev and Aslan Maskhadov?
These questions are unfortunately rhetorical, as the answers are too clear: interests.
Turkey is one of the largest nations of Asia Minor – both in territory and population (comprising 72mln); the military forces of this nation are the second numerous after the US Army. However, its geopolitical significance far exceeds these issues.
In the XIX century, Turkey was determined as the "Queen ofthe Straits", as it locked the exit of Russia from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. In the XXI century, due to its unique geographical situation, it became crucial for the West in dealing with Russia as the major provider of energy resources to Europe.
In its frantic efforts to diversify routes of energy supply, Europe views the Turkish transit as the only realistic solution of the problem. The only land route of transit of oil and gas from Central Asia, bypassing Russia, crosses Turkey. The first effort in the implementation of these plans has already been completed; already 20 million tons of oil have been pumped along the pipeline. This is not much but encouraging for the involved sides.
In this context, the Nabucco pipeline, supposed to pump Turkmen and Iranian gas via Turkey to Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Austria, should be mentioned as well. The expected annual volume of pumped gas (to be completed by 2012) is going to comprise around 30 billion cub. m. However, a series of contracts signed by Gazprom with Austria's OMV, one of the shareholders of the project, and with Central Asia nations, questions economic efficiency of Nabucco's implementation.
Turkey's transit role is not restricted to energy geopolitics. Its developing industry consumes a significant amount of energy resources. Therefore, Turkey is interested to receive gas from Russia along the Blue Stream pipeline, and is hardly interested to risk these bilateral relations just in order to please NATO colleagues, or to pursue the interests of Brussels, which is not much eager to see too many Moslems accepted to the EU.
Turkey has been grateful to the United States as well, primarily for military assistance in NATO's framework. However, after House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted Resolution 106, the crucial military base of Incirlik, essential for the US Air Forces, may be closed for them at any moment, as Ankara officials already hinted.
When the issue of genocide was raised earlier in 2000, a similar resolution also won approval by a House committee. At that time the Republican speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, physically withdrew the draft bill before the full House could vote. It was later revealed Hastert had received half-a-million dollars from Turkish interest groups. Those lobbyists measures were similarly supplied with political pressure: Turkey officially warned of canceling arms sales and withdrawing support for American air forces then patrolling northern Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations.
WASHINGTON IN AN AMBIGUOUS POSITION
The intervention into Northern Iraq, launched by Turkey in October, could hardly be interpreted as a symmetric response to the recent coups de main of PKK fighters. Earlier, Turkish troops also invaded Northern Iraq, chasing Kurdish fighters; however, these actions used to be coordinated with Iraq's government, and were ceased after Iraq's occupation by the coalition forces.
Turkey's commitment for military operations in Northern Iraq places the United States in a doubtful position. First of all, it undermines the reputation of the United States as the "leading and steering force" of the coalition. Secondly, the military intervention contradicts to a lot of public statements of US officials, who have used to emphasize that the US Army guarantees security of the Iraqi population, as well as sovereignty of this state. In his radio address to the American people, dated yet November 1, 2003, George W. Bush declared: "We are introducing a special plan of conveying sovereignty and power to the Iraqi nation. As soon as the national constitution is adopted by the people of Iraq, this nation will enjoy free and fair elections. By transforming Iraq from an exporter of violence and terror into a center of progress and peace, we'll make America more secure". Since then, the Constitution has been adopted and the elections held, but the "ungrateful" people of Iraq is far from enjoying peace and progress; the overthrown Saddam is now seen by the Iraqi as a better guarantor of security than "all the Bush's men".
As far back as in March 2006, then-Iraqi Premier Ibrahim Jaafari claimed that "the United States has failed to establish peace in Iraq; this mission could be accomplished only by Turkey". According to Hurriet daily, these words were addressed by Jaafari to Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a round of talks in Ankara.
Could Erdoğan be following this invitation without consulting Washington? That is doubtful, given the fact that the current moves of Ankara are likely to contribute to further destabilization in Iraq rather than to "progress and peace". The Turkish military have intervened in the northern regions of Iraq, dominated by Kurdish population. Warfare in this region, exacerbating the situation across Iraq, may eventually result in Iraq's disintegration.
Since June 12, 2005, Iraqi Kurdistan is headed by Massoud Barzani, son of the famous commander Mustafa Barzani – the very person who paved his way across Turkey and Iran with his unit of 500 fighters in summer 1947, eventually defeating an Iranian division near Maku and crossing the Soviet border near Nakhichevan. In the USSR, his unit was disarmed and deported to Uzbekistan. However, in a few years the Barzani's people were allowed to settle in Baku, and Barzani himself was accepted to the Military Academy in Moscow under the last name of Mamedov. Returning in 1958 to Iraqi Kurdistan, he resumed his activity and tried to establish an independent Kurdish state in 1961.
In his youth, in 1919, Mustafa Barzani took part in a military effort to protect the Armenians from the massacre in Turkey. Ninety years later, his son is going to be attacked by the Turks who don't accept the accusations of exterminating Armenians. This turn of the historical plotline is very remarkable.
During the occupation of Iraq, the Americans flirted with the Kurds, in order to use them as a convenient partner against Saddam, who used to severely oppress this people. In exchange, Washington elevated another prominent Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, to the post of Iraq's President. At the same time, the United States are reluctant to grant political autonomy to Kurdistan, though the Kurds are the only major ethnic group of Asia Minor which does not have any statehood. This reluctance is explained with Washington's reliance upon Turkey as a strategic partner in the region – but not only.
As Frenchmen say, if it is unclear what the matter really is, be sure that the matter is money. In the geopolitics of today, the term "money" could be gladly replaced with the term "oil" or "gas". As Masood Barzani emphasizes, Kurdistan "stands upon a sea of oil". Gas deposits are available as well. The area of Kirkuk, the pearl of Kurdistan, contains almost a half of Iraq's oil resources. Meanwhile, Kirkuk's status remains undefined. In accordance with Paragraph 140 of the Constitution of Iraq, the oil province is supposed to be conveyed to Kurdistan's jurisdiction before December 31, 2007.
WITH NO CHANCE OF A BLITZKRIEG
It is quite obvious that a referendum in Northern Iraq will result in approval of the above mentioned Paragraph 140 of Iraq's Constitution. This outcome is undesirable for Turkey, which regards a strong and oil-rich autonomous Kurdistan as a threat to its own security.
In January 2007, Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that the referendum in Kirkuk, related to control of oil resources, was likely to trigger a regional conflict. He added that Turkey "can't allow itself to idly watch a demographic transformation in Kirkuk", referring to a potentially increasing Kurdish domination. Under this pretext, Turkey proposed to postpone the referendum for a period of five years (though by that time, the domination of Kurds in Kirkuk may become even stronger – at least unless a new ethnic massacre takes place). Still, Washington would not risk violating the Constitution of Iraq, which had been adopted with much difficulty. In its turn, Ankara declared that "the issue of Iraq is more essential for Turkey than entry into EU".
The Turkish leadership fears insurgencies of ethnic Kurds on its own territory, with potential implications for the political and economic situation. However, overtake of the initiative by deploying Turkish military to Iraq is fraught with back-breaking warfare. Turkey’s regular Turkish army is confronted by numerous units of peshmerga ("men who look in the face of death" – Kurd.). This prospect does not resemble a blitzkrieg – while the deadline of December 31 is rapidly approaching.
US citizens, and especially American GIs, are going to pay for the double standards, involved in the 2003 intervention in Iraq from the beginning. Washington will have to choose between the long-time strategic partners and tactical allies, once selected to carry out the anti-Saddam effort more conveniently and not with American hands. The US Democrats, who launched their own Turkish gambit at such an explosive moment, were obviously intending to trip up the despised Bush. However, in case of election of a Democratic candidate, the winning party will have to deal with the mess itself.
ENG 
