Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary: Are We in for Another Deception?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Commentary: Are We in for Another Deception?

    Commentary: Are We in for Another Deception?
    Posted on March 30, 2012

    by Editor
    http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2012/03/30/commentary-are-we-in-for-another-deception/

    *By Edmond Y. Azadian*

    It is the time of year when Diaspora Armenians - especially in the US and
    Europe - go through the motions, intensify lob- bying activities, raise
    expectations and on April 24, suffer the anticlimactic results of their
    fervor and political activism.

    Lately, a few countries have discovered a convenient method of dangling the
    issue of genocide recognition before their adver- saries. After gaining
    some political mileage, they relegate the case into oblivion, until the
    next opportune period.

    The US has been among those countries; Israel is another one. For many
    years, the Israeli government had flatly denied that the Armenian massacres
    amounted to genocide. That shameful statement was made emphatically by
    then-President Shimon Peres during a trip to Ankara, when relations between
    Israel and Turkey were rock-solid. Recently, however, the Israeli Knesset
    has held hearings about recognizing the Armenian Genocide, as a response to
    Turkey's belligerence against that country. Also, the American-Israel
    Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the US and other lobbying groups -
    which march lockstep with the Israeli government - had indicated publicly
    that they would stop their campaign against the passage of the Armenian
    Genocide by the US Congress. Those quarters have raised hopes throughout
    the Armenian world only to resort to their traditional oppositionist
    tactics to justify their inaction. The excuse for some political pundits is
    that `it is not the prop- er time to recognize the Genocide.' If relations
    are tense with Turkey, the voices of wisdom in Washington and Tel Aviv say
    `we do not wish to further aggravate relations with Turkey.' On the other
    hand, when relations are smooth, there is all the rea- son `not to
    jeopardize our relations with a trusted ally.' Therefore, this continuous
    mantra always generates excuses that `it is not the right time to recognize
    the Genocide.' One wonders when that elusive `right time' for the
    recognition of the Genocide would be.

    No one pinned too much hope on President George Bush when it came to the
    issue of human rights but Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had gained
    tremendous political mileage on sounding moralistic issues, only to fail
    miserably. Bill Clinton's belated apology in Kigali to the Rwandans for his
    inaction dur- ing that country's genocide, a decade after his tenure in the
    White House, sounds hollow, disingenuous and insulting. The UN
    headquarters, the White House and all the capitals of the world had ample
    warning about the impending genocide in Rwanda, but no action was taken,
    because someone somewhere had a vested interest in the murder of 800,000
    Tutsis in less than 100 days.

    Even the head of the UN military mission there had warned the headquarters.
    He defied his superiors to take action, but was removed from his post to
    facilitate the grisly task of the Hutus.

    In the case of the Armenians, Bill Clinton demonstrated the same kind of
    insensitivity by ordering the Republican Speaker of the House Dennis
    Hastert not to bring the resolution to the floor, realizing that enough
    votes were there for its passage. Mr. Hastert was later rewarded generously
    by the Turks for his `ser- vices' in the US Congress.

    Today, Hillary Clinton's dilly-dallying on Genocide recognition seems to
    be
    the continuing echo of her husband's policy. It is no wonder that Obama's
    human rights advisor had labeled her as a `monster.'

    However, that advisor, Samantha Power, is not without bag- gage herself.
    Power rose to prominence through the publication of a masterful book, A
    Problem from Hell, which delved into the Armenian Genocide and the
    Holocaust.

    In time, she gained the reputation of a principled human rights missionary,
    until she joined President Obama's National Security Council as the senior
    director of multilateral affairs. She was the front person of Obama's
    election team who con- vinced Armenians that the Messiah's second coming
    was around the corner and that upon election, Obama would recognize the
    Armenian Genocide. After President Obama powerlessly surren-

    dered to the unelected functionaries of the State Department dancing around
    the `G' word, the White House once again resorted to the creative
    inventions of Power who crafted the president's Martyr's Day statement
    by
    substituting the word `genocide' with the Armenian phrase `medz yeghern,'
    borrow- ing that ruse from the late Pope John Paul II. The pope had sub-
    stituted the Armenian term in a sermon in Armenia, when nobody expected him
    to politicize the issue by playing with words.

    Ever since her credibility was damaged, Power has kept a low profile.
    However, unbelievably, she has played a hawkish role in Obama's Libya
    policy by advocating the invasion of a sovereign country on the `human
    rights' principle.

    We may conclude without much hesitation that the Armenian Genocide, Libya's
    murderous invasion and human rights are all marketing tools for Ms. Power
    to promote her political career.

    France is another country which has used, on and off, the Armenian Genocide
    issue to block Turkey's accession to the European Union. Recently, both
    candidates for president, the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy and his Socialist
    rival, Francois Hollande, found a useful political tool in the issue.
    France has at least recognized the Armenian Genocide, but it has so far
    failed in the criminalization of its denial.

    This column was not party to the jubilation and the hype when the French
    Senate passed the resolution to criminalize the Genocide denial. Instead,
    we qualified it as a partial restitu- tion of France's betrayal of
    Armenians in Cilicia.

    When the Constitutional Court judged the resolution to be unconstitutional,
    without touching the Gaysot Law which has the same legal framework for the
    Holocaust, the entire process was shown to be a charade. When the French
    arms industry was threatened by Turkey - similar to the US counterpart
    - it
    react- ed. And all those who know Sarkozy were sure that he would pull a
    trick out of his sleeve - as he has always done in his polit- ical career -
    and save face. And he did by refusing to pre-empt the action of the
    Constitutional Court, which he knew was com- ing.

    He did not sign the resolution into law, allowing time for Turkey and its
    lobbyists to garner enough votes to take the case to the Constitutional
    Court, where it was doomed. Even Sarkozy's UMP party members acted against
    his will with impunity. No one to this day from Sarkozy's office and his
    inner circle has come up with a plausible explanation as to why he did not
    act when action was imperative.

    Today, Sarkozy promises to draft a new resolution, after the May elections,
    when he will be off the hook whether he wins or loses his bid for a second
    term.

    The Socialist Presidential candidate has offered the same deal to the
    Armenians, which may start the game all over if he wins the Elysee Palace.

    Once geared into the political process, we are not supposed to relent. We
    have a new opportunity here in the US legislature as Sen. Robert Menendez
    (D-NJ) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) intro- duced a new resolution to the
    Senate.

    We cannot disappoint them by our inaction, because they have never
    disappointed their Armenian constituents. Menendez's blocking of Matthew
    Bryza's appointment to the embassy in Baku was an act of defiance of
    historic magnitude.

    The Senate Resolution is similar to the House Resolution.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delayed bringing the resolution to the floor
    arguing that there were not enough votes to pass the resolution.

    Her delaying tactics offered ample time to the special interest groups and
    the administration to twist arms until it really deci- mated the number of
    the supporters.

    We are not sure yet if the resolution has enough support in the Senate and
    the House. We have to be thankful to its champions and supporters and work
    on the remaining legis- lature to act. Win or lose, we are already
    accustomed to dis- appointment. We can start the game all over next year
    until the centennial of the Genocide. There are no promising signs yet of
    meaningful action in Armenia and in the diaspora while Turkey has already
    taken pre-emptive strikes to render our centennial drive irrelevant.

Working...
X