Suat Kiniklioglu, deputy chairman for external affairs for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), has said Turkey and Armenia are within reach of a major breakthrough, thus an Armenian resolution at the US Congress at this time would be "extremely detrimental" to these unprecedented efforts for normalization.

The Armenian diaspora has already started pressuring American politicians over the "genocide resolution," calling for it to be brought to the floor of the US Congress. In addition, there are concerns that US President Barack Obama may use the word "genocide" in his statement marking April 24 -- the day when Armenians commemorate the alleged genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

Kiniklioglu, who is also a deputy for the AK Party, said the Armenian diaspora appears to be totally indifferent to the Armenian government's desire to have normalized relations with Turkey.

"The diaspora is projecting an extremely negative influence on Yerevan. If they manage to push this through I believe this would be a historic example how a small ethnic diaspora subverts US national interests and causes great harm to a delicate region," he added.

Kiniklioglu, who was in Washington, D.C., at the time of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's walkout at the Davos summit after an angry exchange with Israeli President Shimon Peres over Israel's deadly operation in Gaza last month, elaborated on the issue and more.

You were in the United States recently. What was the purpose of your visit?

We went to the United States with the purpose of attending a conference on the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative Prime Minister Erdogan takes very seriously. I delivered a number of speeches in Atlanta and then moved on to Washington, D.C. The primary objective of my visit was really to engage with the new people in Washington due to the change in administration. We aimed at discussing the Turkish-American agenda and seeing what issues might come to the fore under the Obama administration.

Who did you see there and what are your impressions from your trip to Washington?

First of all, one cannot help but notice the deepening of the crisis in the US economy. It is on everyone's mind and President Obama was struggling to push another financial package through Congress while we were there. The new administration is very much preoccupied with the economic crisis and it seems to overwhelm everything else. We met with a number of congressmen and senators, as well as folks from the State Department. We also met with leaders of Jewish organizations and spoke at three events organized by think tanks. Overall we were very much satisfied with our trip and I thought that it was extremely timely for us to be there. Our trip, of course, coincided with the Davos incident. In fact, we were at the CNN International headquarters in Atlanta when we saw the breaking news on Al Jazeera first. Then, I received a message on my Blackberry from the Anatolia news agency and we immediately understood that something important was going on.

Future of Turkish-American partnership

So Davos was very much a part of your trip? 

Indeed, it was, but we did not let that incident divert us from the main mission of our trip. After all, we wanted to talk to our American partners about the future of the Turkish-American partnership. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the obvious about the last eight years but you know the relationship has been strained very much. As Obama won the election and began to line up a truly impressive team in the White House and the administration in general, we wanted to get on with our issues early on and get down to business with our partners in Washington.

The unfortunate event at Davos has, in my opinion, made our meetings even timelier as we obtained the opportunity to clarify our position on the Gaza war and the miserable human tragedy there. Our meeting with Robert Wexler, the co-chairman of the US-Turkey Caucus in the US Congress, as well as the leaders of the Jewish organizations proved to be very constructive. We registered their concerns and took note of their views but respectfully disagreed on the Gaza war and the overreaction by the Israeli government. I believe that regardless of what the causes for the Israeli aggression in Gaza were that the war resulted in gross human rights violations as well as the violation of the Geneva Protocol and the Hague Convention. We were particularly concerned by allegations about the use of white phosphorus shells in Gaza. The US-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch also called on Israel to stop using white phosphorus shells. I do not believe the security of Israel, Palestine or our region has been enhanced by this war. On the contrary, it is likely to breed more violence. That said, our meetings were more forward-looking and aiming at containing the tension between our countries. The leaders of the Jewish organizations underlined that they value the relationship with Turkey and that they do not want a break.

Lastly, we cannot overlook the fact that Prime Minister Erdogan felt deeply offended by the fact that Prime Minister Olmert visited Ankara and discussed the fifth round of talks between Israel and Syria just days before the war on Gaza. In my opinion, Olmert should never have come to Ankara. It put us in a very awkward position. After all our efforts in the Israel-Syria talks I do not think we deserved to be put in such a situation.

Did the issue of anti-Semitism come up? 

You know Prime Minister Erdogan has condemned anti-Semitism on a number of occasions. In fact he has called it a crime against humanity. He is very strong on this. We do not accept the charge of anti-Semitism. This is about concrete policy of a particular leadership in Israel and has nothing to do with the people of Israel or Jews throughout the world. On the contrary, Turkey has always been very hospitable to Jews throughout history -- be it in 1492 or after World War II. We have always embraced them and these lands have been among the rare places where Jews lived comfortably. I met many Turkish Jews on a Foreign Affairs Committee trip in May 2008. They are fine people trying to build a bridge between our countries; however, I have also visited the town of Sderot near Gaza and seen the rockets fired from Gaza. While sympathizing with the fear that the citizens of that city feel and agreeing with them that this cannot be condoned, in no way could the war on Gaza be justified by that. The true path to peace in the region goes through the recognition that all parties must be engaged in a peace process. Regrettably, the Gaza War has increased the risk for more violence and will not enhance the security of Israel. The graphic images of the war have been ingrained in the subconscious of global public opinion.    

What about rumors of an Armenian resolution to be brought to the US Congress again?

While we were in Washington we were informed of a new push to bring an Armenian resolution to the House. Of course, we are extremely upset about the necessity to spend our energy on this issue every fall but we are not going to let the Armenian diaspora get its way. This year, I am particularly concerned because it would be a pity to see Turkish-American relations severed at a time when we were preparing to do what Obama-Biden described in their policy statement on Europe as "rebuilding the strategic partnership with Turkey." As someone who spent considerable time in maintaining and strengthening the Turkish-American partnership I am most concerned with the potential this resolution -- if it is brought to the table -- has to damage our bilateral relationship. It seems totally inconsistent with the objectives of the new administration in our region to push this forward, but we do not know what will transpire in the coming weeks. Secondly, the situation between Turkey and Armenia is different. A major difference from 2007 when H.R. 106 was stopped at the last minute is that since last summer Turkey and Armenia have been engaged in a historic process of normalization between our countries. We are within reach of having a major breakthrough between Turkey and Armenia. More importantly, Azerbaijan is also on board and this is no small achievement given the complexity of the issue. Recent developments have the potential to turn the South Caucasus into a zone of real peace, stability and integration. Bringing an Armenian resolution at this time would not only be extremely detrimental to these historic efforts but would also be interpreted as very disrespectful to Turkey's sincere efforts. Just as we felt offended by the one-sided action of Israel when we were hosting the peace talks between Israel and Syria, this would be equally detrimental. If there is a genuine desire to have a major breakthrough in the South Caucasus -- which I know the State Department has -- we need to make sure that this irresponsible resolution will never make it to the floor.

Also, I think it would be timely to underline an important and for me astounding fact. The Armenian diaspora appears to be totally indifferent to the Armenian government's desire to normalize relations with Turkey. The diaspora is projecting an extremely negative influence on Yerevan. All they care about is one word and that is it. If they manage to push this through I believe this would be a historic example of how a small ethnic diaspora subverts US national interests and causes great harm to a delicate region. I am confident that there are enough responsible people on all three sides to prevent this from happening, especially when all the stars are lined up to make a historic rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia a reality.

What about the Jewish lobby's position on the Armenian resolution?

As you know in the past the Jewish lobby had sided with Turkey on this, but in 2007 we saw some Jewish congressmen breaking the ranks and switching to the Armenian side. The late Tom Lantos was a good example. After Davos, conventional wisdom dictates that the Jewish lobby will not oppose an Armenian resolution. I am not so sure about that and really do not want to comment further. We will see how they will position themselves. After all, this is their decision.

Are you hopeful for the future of the relationship between Turkey and the United States?

Actually, I am. Despite all sorts of reasons that may point to the contrary I believe that the tough times are behind us and that we will be able to work together. If we can overcome the untimely nuisance of the Armenian resolution there is good reason to be optimistic. We have a lot of issues on our agenda ranging from Afghanistan to the nuclearization of the region, Middle East peace process to energy security and others. US support for Turkey's membership drive to the European Union will be more valuable at this time. I believe both Turkey and the US have mutual interests which necessitate us working together. Turkey has become a regional power and is destined to further solidify its position in its immediate environment. As a NATO member with a UN Security Council seat for the next two years, a G-20 member and a candidate country to the EU, Turkey has a lot to offer to its neighborhood. Our American and European allies underline the utility and value of our new regional posture. It is evident in almost every aspect of our neighborhood policy, ranging from the peace talks between Israel and Syria to the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform. We are encouraged by the positive feedback we receive from our friends. Yet, I am somewhat concerned with some practical facts.

Some Americans should make the mental shift about Turkey

Like what?

About how much time and attention the new administration will have for Turkey. Is Turkey policy going to be the derivative of Obama's Middle East policy or Iran policy or Europe policy? Or will there be a Turkey policy on its own, which is what is needed. The economic crisis in the US even further complicates the picture. Obama knows he needs to fix the economy if he wants to be re-elected. Hence, I doubt that the new administration will be able to appropriately prioritize Turkey in their foreign policy agenda. If Turkey were to come into the picture within the framework of the administration's Middle East policy this would be problematic. What we expect first is that President Obama's first European trip will include Ankara and that the president emphasizes to our European partners how much he values Turkey's membership in the EU. This would be a marvelous start between our great countries and a very constructive step in rebuilding the strategic partnership. As Ambassador [Marc] Grossman used to say, the Turkish-American relationship is not a natural relationship -- it needs constant care and attention to prosper.

What do you see as a major challenge in Turkish-American relations?

I have said for a number of years now that the primary challenge in the relationship is the inability of some Americans to make the mental shift about Turkey. Turkey is no longer the Cold War satellite state which came under consideration within a purely security outlook. Turkey has grown into something else. It is a functioning democracy; it has a young and dynamic population and a growing economy. Most importantly, it has growing awareness of its past and is going through a renaissance about its Ottoman heritage. The neighborhood policy we started to implement in 2002 has sparked an enormous process whereby Turkey began to reintegrate with its immediate environment -- be it in the Balkans, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Middle East or the eastern Mediterranean. The architect behind this policy is Professor Ahmet Davutoglu. He articulated it in such a manner that it blew me away when I first read his treatise "Strategic Depth." The greatest challenge in the relationship is to complete this mental shift and restructure our partnership accordingly. Once you do that our American friends will see that Turkey has become a country whose destiny has meaning way beyond its national borders. What happens in Turkey, what is said about Turkey and how Turkey is treated is very closely monitored by a wide geography which includes the Middle East, the larger Muslim world and even Southeast Asia. Turkey is a great experiment that must succeed. My measuring stick for that success is that Turkey becomes a full member in the European Union and is a respectable member of this new union. The moment we have the US with us on this -- I mean acknowledging that Turkey's fate has repercussions beyond Turkey's borders and therefore should be a primary concern for Washington -- we will have a great possibility to work together. 

What are your thoughts on recent comments related to Turkey turning away from the West?

Turkey's security is enhanced by its reintegration with its neighborhood. I would like to reiterate that our neighborhood policy is not at the expense of our Western vocation. On the contrary, it is complementary to it. Interpreting Turkey's neighborhood policy as a shift in our orientation does gross injustice to our efforts and totally ignores the sophistication behind our regional outreach. Turkey will be -- just like the double-headed eagle symbolizing the coat of arms of the Seljuk Turkish Empire -- looking to both the East and West. This is what our geography, our history and regional identity dictate.