Tweet
[Congressional Record: April 23, 2007 (House)]
[Page H3755-H3756]
>From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr23ap07-102]
WHY THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MATTERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, tonight I plan to speak on the anniversary
of the Armenian genocide; but before I do, I want to join my colleagues
in expressing my sincere condolence at the passing of Juanita
Millender-McDonald, someone who in my very first days of Congress
impressed me as a courageous, intelligent, dedicated public servant
who, every time I went to her for help on an issue in her committee or
outside her committee, was generous with her time and her energy,
always ready to help, always of good cheer, and someone that I think
enjoyed the unanimous and bipartisan respect of everyone in this body.
Her memory will be cherished; her presence will be deeply missed.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 92nd anniversary of the start of the
Armenian genocide. In January, I introduced a resolution in the House,
along with my colleagues, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Knollenberg and Mr.
Radanovich, that would recognize the Armenian genocide. This resolution
should be passed. Ghazaros Kademian is one reason why.
Ghazaros Kademian was just 6 years old when his family was forced
into exile by Ottoman Turks bent on annihilating the Armenian people.
His father was murdered by Turk gendarmes, and the rest of his family
was forced to flee on foot to Kirkuk, where his mother died from cold
and hunger. He was separated from his siblings and orphaned.
Mr. Kademian's story is terrible, but is not remarkable. Over a
million and a half Armenians were murdered in the first genocide of the
last century as the Ottoman Empire used the cloak of war to wipe out a
people it considered alien or disloyal. This mammoth crime was well
known at the time. Newspapers of the day were filled with stories about
the murder of the Armenians. ``Appeal to Turkey to Stop Massacres''
headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing
began. By October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000
Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December
of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile.
Thousands of pages of evidence documenting the atrocities rest in our
own National Archives. Prominent citizens of the day, including
America's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and
Britain's Lord Bryce, reported on the massacres in great detail.
Morgenthau was appalled at what he would later call sadistic orgies of
rape, torture, and murder. ``When the Turkish authorities gave the
orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death
warrant to a whole race. They understood this well and made no
particular attempt to conceal the fact.''
Even those who most ardently advocated sweeping the murder of a
million and a half people under the rug of history have conceded that
the vast majority of historians accept the Armenian genocide as
historic fact. And how could they not? For it was the Government of
Turkey that in early 1919 held a number of well-publicized trials of
some of the young Turk leaders and executed the Keimal Bey, governor of
Diarbekir, specifically for his role as one of the Ottoman Empire's
most savage persecutors of the Armenian people. The trials were as
widely covered in the American press as was the genocide itself.
So if the facts are not in dispute, why are so many nations complicit
in modern Turkey's strenuous efforts to deny
[[Page H3756]]
the genocide ever took place? First, opponents argue that recognizing
the unpleasant facts of the genocide and of the mass murder risk
alienating an important alliance with Turkey. There is no question that
Turkey is bitterly opposed to recognition and is threatening our
military and commercial relationship, including access to the Incirlik
air base, but Turkey has made similar threats to other nations in the
past only to retreat from them and the European Union's insistence that
Ankara recognize the crimes of its Ottoman's forebears before Turkey is
admitted to the EU has not dimmed Turkish enthusiasm for joining the
EU.
If Turkish relations with the U.S. do suffer, it is far more likely
that the genocide recognition will be a pretext. The Bush
administration has done such a poor job managing our relations with
Turkey over the last 6 years that we have already seen the limits of
the U.S.-Turkish alliance tested and found lacking.
During the run-up to the war in Iraq, Turkey denied us permission to
bring in ground forces from its soil, allowing the Saddam Fedeyeen to
melt away and form the basis of a now persistent insurgency. Oddly
enough, critics of recognition decry it as pandering to the victims,
but are only too happy to pander to the sensibilities of an
inconsistent ally, and one that has shown no qualms about accusing the
U.S. of genocide in Iraq.
Second, opponents take issue with the timing of the resolution and
argue that Turkey is making progress with recognizing the dark chapters
of its history. This claim lost all credibility when Orhan Pamuk,
Turkey's Nobel Prize winning author, was brought up on charges of
``insulting Turkishness'' for alluding to the genocide, and Turkish
Armenian publisher Hrant Dink was gunned down outside his office in
Istanbul earlier this year.
Tomorrow marks the 92nd Anniversary of start of the Armenian
Genocide. In January, I introduced a resolution in the House that would
recognize the Armenian Genocide. It should be passed. Ghazaros Kademian
is one reason why.
Ghazaros Kademian was just 6 years old when his family was forced
into exile by Ottoman Turks bent on annihilating the Armenian people.
His father was murdered by Turk gendarmes and the rest of the family
was forced to flee on foot to Kirkuk, where his mother died from cold
and hunger. He was separated from his siblings and orphaned.
Mr. Kademian's story is terrible, but not remarkable. Over a million
and a half Armenians were murdered in the first genocide of the last
century as the Ottoman Empire used the cloak of war to wipe out a
people it considered alien and disloyal. This mammoth crime was well
known at the time; newspapers of the day were filled with stories about
the murder of Armenians. ``Appeal to Turkey to stop massacres''
headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing
began. By October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000
Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December
of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile.
Thousands of pages of evidence documenting the atrocities rest in our
own National Archives.
Prominent citizens of the day, including America's Ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and Britain's Lord Bryce reported on
the massacres in great detail. Morgenthau was appalled at what he would
later call the sadistic orgies of rape, torture, and murder. ``When the
Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were
merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this
well, and . . . made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.''
Even those who have most ardently advocated sweeping the murder of a
million and a half people under the rug of history have conceded that
the vast majority of historians accept the Armenian Genocide as
historical fact. And how could they not--for it was the Government of
Turkey that, in early 1919, held a number of well-publicized trials of
some of the Young Turk leaders and executed Keimal Bey, the governor of
Diarbekir, specifically for his role as one of the Ottoman Empire's
most savage persecutors of the Armenian people. The trials, by the way,
were as widely covered in the American press as was the genocide
itself.
So if the facts are not in dispute, why are so many nations complicit
in modern Turkey's strenuous efforts to deny the genocide ever took
place? First, opponents argue that recognizing the unpleasant fact of
mass murder risks alienating our important alliance with Turkey. There
is no question that Turkey is bitterly opposed to recognition, and is
threatening our military and commercial relationship, including access
to the Incirlik air base. But Turkey has made similar threats to other
nations in the past only to retreat from them and the European Union's
insistence that Ankara recognize the crimes of its Ottoman forebears
before Turkey is admitted to the EU has not dimmed Turkish enthusiasm
for joining the EU.
If Turkish relations with the U.S. do suffer, it is far more likely
that the genocide recognition will be a pretext; the Bush
Administration has done such a poor job managing our relations with
Turkey over the last six years that we have already seen the limits of
the U.S. Turkish alliance tested and found lacking. During the run-up
to the war in Iraq, Turkey denied us permission to bring in ground
forces from its soil, allowing the Saddam Fedeyeen to melt away and
form the basis of a now persistent insurgency. Oddly enough, critics of
recognition decry it as pandering to the victims, but are only too
happy to pander to the sensibilities of an inconstant ally, and one
that has shown no qualms about accusing the U.S. of genocide in Iraq.
Second, opponents take issue with the timing of the resolution and
argue that Turkey is making progress with recognizing the dark chapters
of its history. This claim lost all credibility when Orhan Pamuk,
Turkey's Nobel Prize winning author was brought up on charges for
``insulting Turkishness'' for alluding to the genocide, and Turkish
Armenian publisher Hrant Dink was gunned down outside his office in
Istanbul earlier this year. Yet some opponents go even further, such as
a former Ambassador to Turkey who argued that the time may never be
right for America to comment ``on another's history or morality.'' Such
a ludicrous policy would condemn Congress to silence on a host of human
rights abuses around the world. After more than ninety years and with
only a few survivors left, if the time is not right now to recognize
the Armenian Genocide, when will it be?
But the most pernicious argument against recognition is the claim
that speaking the truth would harm relations with Turkey ``for no good
reason.'' How can we claim the moral authority to decry the genocide in
Darfur, as we must, if we are unwilling to deplore other genocides when
it would inconvenience an ally? Elie Wiesel has described the denial of
genocide as the final stage of genocide--a double killing. If you don't
think he's right, talk to Ghazaros Kademian. But you had better hurry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Ms. ESHOO addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in
the Extensions of Remarks.)
[Page H3755-H3756]
>From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr23ap07-102]
WHY THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE MATTERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, tonight I plan to speak on the anniversary
of the Armenian genocide; but before I do, I want to join my colleagues
in expressing my sincere condolence at the passing of Juanita
Millender-McDonald, someone who in my very first days of Congress
impressed me as a courageous, intelligent, dedicated public servant
who, every time I went to her for help on an issue in her committee or
outside her committee, was generous with her time and her energy,
always ready to help, always of good cheer, and someone that I think
enjoyed the unanimous and bipartisan respect of everyone in this body.
Her memory will be cherished; her presence will be deeply missed.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 92nd anniversary of the start of the
Armenian genocide. In January, I introduced a resolution in the House,
along with my colleagues, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Knollenberg and Mr.
Radanovich, that would recognize the Armenian genocide. This resolution
should be passed. Ghazaros Kademian is one reason why.
Ghazaros Kademian was just 6 years old when his family was forced
into exile by Ottoman Turks bent on annihilating the Armenian people.
His father was murdered by Turk gendarmes, and the rest of his family
was forced to flee on foot to Kirkuk, where his mother died from cold
and hunger. He was separated from his siblings and orphaned.
Mr. Kademian's story is terrible, but is not remarkable. Over a
million and a half Armenians were murdered in the first genocide of the
last century as the Ottoman Empire used the cloak of war to wipe out a
people it considered alien or disloyal. This mammoth crime was well
known at the time. Newspapers of the day were filled with stories about
the murder of the Armenians. ``Appeal to Turkey to Stop Massacres''
headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing
began. By October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000
Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December
of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile.
Thousands of pages of evidence documenting the atrocities rest in our
own National Archives. Prominent citizens of the day, including
America's ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and
Britain's Lord Bryce, reported on the massacres in great detail.
Morgenthau was appalled at what he would later call sadistic orgies of
rape, torture, and murder. ``When the Turkish authorities gave the
orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death
warrant to a whole race. They understood this well and made no
particular attempt to conceal the fact.''
Even those who most ardently advocated sweeping the murder of a
million and a half people under the rug of history have conceded that
the vast majority of historians accept the Armenian genocide as
historic fact. And how could they not? For it was the Government of
Turkey that in early 1919 held a number of well-publicized trials of
some of the young Turk leaders and executed the Keimal Bey, governor of
Diarbekir, specifically for his role as one of the Ottoman Empire's
most savage persecutors of the Armenian people. The trials were as
widely covered in the American press as was the genocide itself.
So if the facts are not in dispute, why are so many nations complicit
in modern Turkey's strenuous efforts to deny
[[Page H3756]]
the genocide ever took place? First, opponents argue that recognizing
the unpleasant facts of the genocide and of the mass murder risk
alienating an important alliance with Turkey. There is no question that
Turkey is bitterly opposed to recognition and is threatening our
military and commercial relationship, including access to the Incirlik
air base, but Turkey has made similar threats to other nations in the
past only to retreat from them and the European Union's insistence that
Ankara recognize the crimes of its Ottoman's forebears before Turkey is
admitted to the EU has not dimmed Turkish enthusiasm for joining the
EU.
If Turkish relations with the U.S. do suffer, it is far more likely
that the genocide recognition will be a pretext. The Bush
administration has done such a poor job managing our relations with
Turkey over the last 6 years that we have already seen the limits of
the U.S.-Turkish alliance tested and found lacking.
During the run-up to the war in Iraq, Turkey denied us permission to
bring in ground forces from its soil, allowing the Saddam Fedeyeen to
melt away and form the basis of a now persistent insurgency. Oddly
enough, critics of recognition decry it as pandering to the victims,
but are only too happy to pander to the sensibilities of an
inconsistent ally, and one that has shown no qualms about accusing the
U.S. of genocide in Iraq.
Second, opponents take issue with the timing of the resolution and
argue that Turkey is making progress with recognizing the dark chapters
of its history. This claim lost all credibility when Orhan Pamuk,
Turkey's Nobel Prize winning author, was brought up on charges of
``insulting Turkishness'' for alluding to the genocide, and Turkish
Armenian publisher Hrant Dink was gunned down outside his office in
Istanbul earlier this year.
Tomorrow marks the 92nd Anniversary of start of the Armenian
Genocide. In January, I introduced a resolution in the House that would
recognize the Armenian Genocide. It should be passed. Ghazaros Kademian
is one reason why.
Ghazaros Kademian was just 6 years old when his family was forced
into exile by Ottoman Turks bent on annihilating the Armenian people.
His father was murdered by Turk gendarmes and the rest of the family
was forced to flee on foot to Kirkuk, where his mother died from cold
and hunger. He was separated from his siblings and orphaned.
Mr. Kademian's story is terrible, but not remarkable. Over a million
and a half Armenians were murdered in the first genocide of the last
century as the Ottoman Empire used the cloak of war to wipe out a
people it considered alien and disloyal. This mammoth crime was well
known at the time; newspapers of the day were filled with stories about
the murder of Armenians. ``Appeal to Turkey to stop massacres''
headlined the New York Times on April 28, 1915, just as the killing
began. By October 7 of that year, the Times reported that 800,000
Armenians had been slain in cold blood in Asia Minor. In mid-December
of 1915, the Times spoke of a million Armenians killed or in exile.
Thousands of pages of evidence documenting the atrocities rest in our
own National Archives.
Prominent citizens of the day, including America's Ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, and Britain's Lord Bryce reported on
the massacres in great detail. Morgenthau was appalled at what he would
later call the sadistic orgies of rape, torture, and murder. ``When the
Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were
merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this
well, and . . . made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.''
Even those who have most ardently advocated sweeping the murder of a
million and a half people under the rug of history have conceded that
the vast majority of historians accept the Armenian Genocide as
historical fact. And how could they not--for it was the Government of
Turkey that, in early 1919, held a number of well-publicized trials of
some of the Young Turk leaders and executed Keimal Bey, the governor of
Diarbekir, specifically for his role as one of the Ottoman Empire's
most savage persecutors of the Armenian people. The trials, by the way,
were as widely covered in the American press as was the genocide
itself.
So if the facts are not in dispute, why are so many nations complicit
in modern Turkey's strenuous efforts to deny the genocide ever took
place? First, opponents argue that recognizing the unpleasant fact of
mass murder risks alienating our important alliance with Turkey. There
is no question that Turkey is bitterly opposed to recognition, and is
threatening our military and commercial relationship, including access
to the Incirlik air base. But Turkey has made similar threats to other
nations in the past only to retreat from them and the European Union's
insistence that Ankara recognize the crimes of its Ottoman forebears
before Turkey is admitted to the EU has not dimmed Turkish enthusiasm
for joining the EU.
If Turkish relations with the U.S. do suffer, it is far more likely
that the genocide recognition will be a pretext; the Bush
Administration has done such a poor job managing our relations with
Turkey over the last six years that we have already seen the limits of
the U.S. Turkish alliance tested and found lacking. During the run-up
to the war in Iraq, Turkey denied us permission to bring in ground
forces from its soil, allowing the Saddam Fedeyeen to melt away and
form the basis of a now persistent insurgency. Oddly enough, critics of
recognition decry it as pandering to the victims, but are only too
happy to pander to the sensibilities of an inconstant ally, and one
that has shown no qualms about accusing the U.S. of genocide in Iraq.
Second, opponents take issue with the timing of the resolution and
argue that Turkey is making progress with recognizing the dark chapters
of its history. This claim lost all credibility when Orhan Pamuk,
Turkey's Nobel Prize winning author was brought up on charges for
``insulting Turkishness'' for alluding to the genocide, and Turkish
Armenian publisher Hrant Dink was gunned down outside his office in
Istanbul earlier this year. Yet some opponents go even further, such as
a former Ambassador to Turkey who argued that the time may never be
right for America to comment ``on another's history or morality.'' Such
a ludicrous policy would condemn Congress to silence on a host of human
rights abuses around the world. After more than ninety years and with
only a few survivors left, if the time is not right now to recognize
the Armenian Genocide, when will it be?
But the most pernicious argument against recognition is the claim
that speaking the truth would harm relations with Turkey ``for no good
reason.'' How can we claim the moral authority to decry the genocide in
Darfur, as we must, if we are unwilling to deplore other genocides when
it would inconvenience an ally? Elie Wiesel has described the denial of
genocide as the final stage of genocide--a double killing. If you don't
think he's right, talk to Ghazaros Kademian. But you had better hurry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Ms. ESHOO addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in
the Extensions of Remarks.)