!á��ellspacing="0" ce�ÿ  6DID THE AMERICANS REALLY SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT?Ò

The only viable option against American recognition of Armenian genocide is ‘retaliation with no face value but a lot of publicity value’  Did the Americans really shoot themselves in the foot when the Committee passed the Armenian genocide bill? General Yaþar Büyükanýt, chief of the Turkish military, thinks they did.

K;ar Büyükanýt, chief of the Turkish military, thinks they did. Whether they really did may be another matter. If the Slovaks or the Italians or the Russians did not shoot themselves in the foot, why would the Americans do so who are “much bigger bites” for the Turkish mouth and teeth?   Turkey's record of retaliation in return for Armenian genocide recognition is not really frightening for any foreign parliament, let alone the American House. Past examples invariably show that the “Turkish retaliation apparatus” is made up of bold words followed by “business as usual.”

How did Turkey ‘bite' in the past?

  Russia, for example, is Turkey's top natural gas exporter, top importer and second largest source of tourist revenue. Germany is the top export market for Turkey, second biggest exporter to Turkey and largest source of tourist revenue. Italy ranks third in exports and fourth in imports. In addition, it has become a major supplier of weapons systems – most recently, an Italy-based manufacturer won a multibillion-dollar defense procurement contract for the supply of scores of attack helicopters. France is the sixth largest exporter to and fourth largest export market for Turkey. Although one French company, Alcatel, lost a military satellite contract amid the heat of the genocide bill in 2001, two “one-third” French companies are now bidders for the same deal. Lebanon is another deviation. Having recognized the bitter years 1915 onwards as genocide, Lebanon did not lure Turkish ire, but Turkish peacekeeping troops under the U.N. umbrella. Switzerland perhaps can be singled out as a partial loser as one Swiss company was forced out of competition for the sale of trainer aircraft to the Turkish Air Force. Otherwise trade with the land of fine chocolate and watches progresses exponentially. Trade with Greece, another genocide-recognizing country, has grown visibly in recent years. In addition Greek banks are increasingly becoming major players in Turkey's financial organism. With most other genocide-friendly countries, like Chile, Uruguay, Argentina and (Greek) Cyprus, Turkey has no or minimal political and commercial contact, hence no instrument to retaliate. Over several years of “threatening with retaliation” as a main policy tool against genocide recognition the Turks have visibly lost credibility. Why would the American Committee members have to neglect that non-negligible and bitter truth? We may think that the Democrats have been behaving ignorantly. We may think the Democrats have proven that there may one day be an American administration even more incompetent than President Bush's. All that will not change the fact that the Turkish talk of punishing America is unnecessary and unfounded.

Did anyone say anti-Americanism?

  Yes, all that assortment of retaliation options, ranging from blocking American supply routes to Iraq (and Afghanistan) to banning the use of the Ýncirlik air base and to minimizing military cooperation, would harm American interests, but not more than a mosquito bite on an elephant. Such “punishing” action will not mean more than a fistful of dollars for the American Treasury. As for the public reaction, yes, it's there and presumably adds to the presumed anti-Americanism in Turkey. But at the peak of anti-Americanism in Turkey, did the Turks not overwhelmingly vote for a prime minister with “excellent” relations with the Americans? Is the Turkish politician in charge of fighting Armenian genocide claims not the darling of the Turks and now resides in the presidential palace? Did the Turks not know that Resolution 106 was maturing in Washington, but waiting for the Turkish elections to pass by, probably in a half-spoken deal with the Turkish government? Did the “anti-American” Turks not forget in a span of a few years that it was the country they say they hate the most which ensured the capture of their public enemy number one? Should we then be surprised if pro-Americanism replaced “anti-Americanism” in largely pragmatic Turkey in a few years time? Fortunately, both Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and Gen. Büyükanýt, otherwise ideological opponents, are smart men who would know better than this columnist that a campaign against American interests in retaliation for genocide recognition would mean (a) only too little and no doubt affordable damage to American interests and (b) no gain for Turkey, with the prospect of future losses. What the Americans and their Turkish friends must now work out is an agreed package of “retaliation” designed to minimize damage to American interests (retaliation with no substantial damage) and maximize the impact for domestic consumption i.e., any move that would make the pragmatist Turks think that their all-too-powerful government proportionately responded to the gringo arrogance but would not actually hurt the arrogant gringos. The only viable option is “retaliation with no face value but a lot of publicity value.”