PARLIAMENT FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE WARNS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 000257 C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (TEXT PARA 10) SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SE E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/16/2020 TAGS: PREL PGOV AR TU SUBJECT: PARLIAMENT FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE WARNS AMBASSADOR ON AGR FALLOUT REF: ANKARA 185 ANKARA 00000257 001.2 OF 002 Classified By: Ambassador James Jeffrey, for reasons 1.4(b,d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. During an extensive meeting with the Ambassador February 16, eight members of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee raised concerns about the draft Armenian Genocide Resolution now being discussed in the US Congress and warned that, if passed by the full Congress, an AGR would have a devastating impact on US-Turkey relations and would cause a sharp rise in anti-Americanism in Turkey. A senior CHP deputy lamented that, unlike in the past, this year the US and Turkey are not working together to dissuade Congress from passing an AGR. The Ambassador took the point but reiterated that the best way forward is to advance Turkey-Armenia relations, as President Obama himself has counseled. However, the committee members insisted that ratifying the Turkey-Armenia Protocols is conditioned on a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. This has now blown up all over the Turkish press, and in our view we need to refine our public position to keep the political collateral damage under control. (See paragraph 10.) END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) Invited to appear before a highly publicized session of the Foreign Affairs Committee February 16 to their concerns about the House draft Armenian Genocide Resolution, the Ambassador opened with a statement applauding the current bilateral relationship, noting the recent meeting in Doha between the Secretary and PM Erdogan. He pointed out that draft Armenian Genocide Resolutions are a regular feature of the Congressional calendar, and emphasized that the U.S. Congress is an independent body, as is the Turkish Parliament. The US Administration never knows what the result of the Congressional vote will be. The best way forward, he said, is to advance relations between Turkey and Armenia, as President Obama himself has stated on several occasions. ¶3. (C) Committee Chairman Murat Mercan replied that two obstacles are blocking the passage of the Turkey-Armenia Protocols: the recent decision by the Armenian Constitutional Court; and the "invasion of Azerbaijan territory" by Armenia in and around Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K). Mercan said Turkey would not pass the protocols before the N-K issue is settled. To do so would be contrary to Turkey's strategic interests and would be extremely damaging to Turkey-Armenia relations. Mercan noted that Turkey's stance on genocide allegations is well-known: it advocates establishing a historical commission and opening up the state archives. If the draft AGR is passed by the U.S. Congress, he said, Turkish-American relations would be damaged beyond repair. "I cannot even predict the extent of such damage." ¶4. (C) MHP Deputy Bolukbasi focused on the term "genocide," arguing that because it was only defined by the United Nations in 1948, it cannot be used to describe alleged events in 1915. "Otherwise there would be a legal conflict between our countries." Bolukbasi noted that the Ambassador had praised the current bilateral relationship, but on the other hand "you accuse us with the most heinous crime of all." If the AGR is passed, it would have dire consequences that would be reflected in Turkish policy toward the US. He suggested that the Ambassador's advice to ratify the Turkey-Armenia Protocols "implies a covert threat." ¶5. (C) CHP Deputy Elekdag complained that the Armenian Constitutional Court decision altered five central points in the Turkey-Armenia Protocols, because it: -- does not recognize the validity of the Moscow and Kars Treaties; -- verifies that Armenia has set its sights on Turkish territory in eastern Anatolia; -- opposes setting up a historical commission to examine the 1915 events; -- advocates continuing the "genocide" campaign; -- stipulates that all agreements between Turkey and Armenia should be in compliance with the Armenia Constitution and the Armenia Declaration of Independence. ¶6. (C) Elekdag also criticized Yerevan's departure from international norms which, he said, dictate that agreements signed by foreign ministers should be submitted directly for ratification and not put through a secondary process such as a court review. The Ambassador noted that MFA officials are currently in Washington to discuss the legal aspects of the protocols, and reiterated that the US stands ready to assist with relations between Turkey and Armenia. Pressed by Elekdag, the Ambassador said that neither he nor any of the Department lawyers we had consulted could agree with Elekdag's analysis. ANKARA 00000257 002.2 OF 002 ¶7. (C) CHP Deputy Oymen said that Turkey has dealt with the problem of draft AGRs in the past, often by working together with executive branch officials and by inviting congressmen and staffers to Turkey. "We have neglected to do that this year." Turkey should also engage the American press to convince the Congress about the Turkish case. Oymen pointed out that the Armenians are not only referring to the 1915 events, but also those of 1920-1923, when the Republic of Turkey had been created. The Armenians are seeking to settle "old scores" not only with the Ottomans, but also with Turkey. ¶8. (C) AKP Deputy Cerci compared the draft AGR to the sword of Damocles hanging over Turkey's head. CHP Deputy Aritman predicted that there would be a sharp and irrevocable rise in anti-Americanism in Turkey if the US Congress passes the draft AGR. "The Turkish people place more importance on US Congressional Resolutions than on the resolutions of other countries' parliaments." ¶9. (C) COMMENT: The commentary from the Foreign Affairs Committee members provides a flavor of both the political problem that the GOT faces in getting the Protocols through Parliament, and the danger of a Parliamentary reaction against the US if an AGR passes or if the President uses the word "genocide" in his April 24 statement. ¶10. (C) COMMENT (cont.): The problem we have is that our current public position, no matter how we sugarcoat it, amounts to a veiled threat, something the MPs and the media have immediately seized upon: i.e., if the Turks want to maximize the chances of stopping an AGR or use of "genocide" by the Administration, then they should "move forward on Turkish-Armenian rapprochement" (i.e., ratify the Protocols), albeit without any USG guarantee. The problem is that the "reverse of the coin" is also logical -- if "genocide" is deployed in a resolution or an Administration statement, then the chances of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement brokered by the US will be dead for a generation; and the chances of a conflict somehow along the Turkish-Armenian-Azerbaijan nexus significantly increased. If we are sure of one thing out here, it is that. Logically, then, from the Turkish standpoint, the USG should in some way in fact or in rhetoric be trying to slow down or block Congress's effort on the AGR. As the Turks see no sign of this, they compare it to past joint Turkish-US mobilization of effort against the AGR and conclude that we, at best, are trying to threaten/pressure Turkey into ratification or, at worst, will be happy to see both ratification and then an AGR. That sounds incredible but this is the paranoid world we live in here. Absent some modification of what we tell the Turks, Congress and the media, public pressure on the GOT to lash out at us with their own counter threats and actions will mount rapidly. Jeffrey "Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at http://www.intelink.s gov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turkey"