Tweet
Hellenic News of America, PA
Dec 5 2007
Executive Branch Appeasement of Turkey Continues
12-4-07
The latest example of the Executive Branch appeasement of Turkey to
the detriment of U.S. interests concerns the Armenian Genocide
resolutions in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 106 and the
Senate, S. Res. 106.
The vote on H. Res. 106 in the House Foreign Affairs Committee took
place on October 10, 2007. The resolution passed 27 to 21 on October
10, 2007, despite a massive lobbying campaign by the White House, the
State and Defense Departments and the Turkish government.
The government of Turkey is spending over $3.6 million annually for
lobbyists including former Congressmen Bob Livingston and Dick
Gephardt, DLA Piper and Fleishman-Hillard, public relations
specialists.
As a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush pledged that he would make
sure that `our nation properly recognizes' that: `The Armenians were
subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and
commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts.'
Bush however failed to use the term genocide in the annual April 24
presidential statement on the subject. President Clinton also refused
to use the term genocide in his April 24 statements. April 24 is the
date generally considered the start of the killings of Armenians in
1915 by the `Young Turks' under the Pashas which lasted into 1923
under Ataturk.
Bush urged the Congress and the members of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee not to vote for H. Res. 106. The State and Defense
Departments went all out to defeat it.
The State Department obtained the signatures of all eight living
former secretaries of state on a joint letter to House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-California) which contained a warning that H. Res. 106, a
non-binding resolution `would endanger our national security
interests in the region, including the safety of our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan.'
I concur with those 27 Representatives who voted for H. Res. 106 and
who, in effect, question the thesis of the joint letter and its
accuracy.
I concur with Congressman Brad Sherman (D-California) a principal
sponsor of H. Res. 106 who said in his opening statement in the
Committee on October 10, 2007 prior to the vote:
`What happened in 1915 to 1923? In the area now encompassed by
Turkey, the Armenian population was two million. Eight years later it
was virtually zero. Our own ambassador to the Ottoman Empire stated
what happened: �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, in their conversations
with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.�
Or turn to Mustaffa Arriff, the last minister of the Interior of the
Ottoman Empire, who said, �Our wartime leaders...decided to
exterminated the Armenians, and they did exterminate them.�
It is right for this Congress to recognize a genocide particularly
when it is denied. Genocide denial is not only the last step of a
genocide, it is the first step in the next genocide. When Hitler had
to convince his cohorts that the world would let them get away with
it, he turned to them and said, �Who, after all, speaks today
of the annihilation of the Armenians?�
Opponents say that Turkey will be angry....This Committee has condemned
particular actions of such great allies such as England and Canada.
We cannot provide genocide denial as one of the perks of friendship
with the United States.
- - - -
We are told that if we pass this resolution Turkey will react against
us. Beyond the moral bankruptcy of such threats lies Turkey�s
long-standing practice of trying to win through intimidation, and
then when a resolution is passed, doing little or nothing. Despite
threats of harsh retribution, Turkey has taken either no steps at
all, or token diplomatic steps, against Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Belgium, Argentina, and more than 10 other countries that have
recognized the Armenian Genocide.
Forty of the United States have recognized the Armenian Genocide, and
their trade with Turkey has gone up. My own state of California
formally recognized the Armenian Genocide in 1997 and our exports to
Turkey have been doing just fine, thank you.
The best example, and the biggest battle, was France, which in 2001
was threatened by Turkey with a trade boycott if it recognized the
Armenian Genocide. The French went ahead and recognized that
genocide. The chart shows you what happened - a near tripling of French
exports to Turkey.
- - - -
This resolution is supported by virtually every scholar of genocide,
and by both the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the
Arab-American Institute.
Finally, we are asked, �Why act now?� Turkey will be a
better ally if we speak the truth. Turkey will be an even better ally
if Turkey speaks the truth.
But we also have very personal reasons to act now. Today, at this
Committee meeting, we have with us four people who survived the
Armenian Genocide. They are in their 90s and 100s. We cannot tell
them, �Wait. Come back in a few years.� Let these
survivors see the country that gave them refuge also give them
justice - while they are still here to see it.'
Clearly there are several alternatives to Incirlik air base in Turkey
for logistical support of our troops in Iraq. And Turkey�s
troops are not welcome in Iraq.
Because of the Turkish threats to stop the use of Incirlik air base
and overflight rights by the U.S. if the House of Representatives
passes H. Res. 106, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the principal sponsors
of the bill have postponed bringing the bill to the House floor for a
vote at this time.
Congressman Sherman put it well when he wrote `Americans must ask
Turkey, when has it become fashionable for friends to threaten
friends?'
Turkey�s negotiating tactics
It is important to remember Turkey�s negotiating tactics.
Martin Gilbert, the world renowned historian and biographer of
Churchill, in a conference at the Library of Congress on the Armenian
Genocide summarized Turkey�s negotiating tactics as follows:
(1)Admit nothing and deny everything;
(2)lie; and
(3)attack, attack, attack.
Turkey�s threats against the U.S. if the House passes H. Res.
106 is an example of `attack.' The Executive Branch (White House,
State and Defense Departments) response is shameful and exposes a
deep weakness in our diplomatic policy. The State and Defense
Departments of successive administration have practiced a policy of
appeasement of Turkey and a policy of double standards on the rule of
law for Turkey.
U.S.-Turkey policy based on false premises
The added disgrace of the Executive Branch policies regarding Turkey
is that they are based on false premises.
Ted Galen Carpenter, the Vice President for Defense and Foreign
Policy Studies of the respected CATO Institute in Washington, D.C. is
one of our nation�s leading defense and foreign policy
analysts. His recent remarks on U.S.-Turkey relations on November 13
at an American Hellenic Institute (AHI) Noon Forum are important. Dr.
Carpenter set forth clearly and cogently the reason why the
`conventional wisdom in American foreign policy circles regarding
Turkey' is in error.
He lists four assumptions of the `conventional wisdom' and then
demonstrates that each of them is `partially false or totally false.'
His remarks should be required reading in the State and Defense
Departments, the National Security Council and the Congress. The AHI
will distribute these remarks to each Representative, Senator, the
President and Executive Branch officials.
Dr. Carpenter stated that the conventional wisdom in American foreign
policy circles regarding Turkey asserts the following four
propositions:
First , that Turkey has been a loyal ally of the United States since
the earliest days of the Cold War and remains a loyal ally.
Second, that Turkey is a force for stability in the Middle East and
Central Asia in addition to its role within NATO and European
affairs.
Third, that Turkey is basically a Western secular country.
Fourth, Turkey is a good candidate that should be admitted to the
European Union in the near future.
Dr. Carpenter in his remarks demonstrated `that every one of those
assumptions is either partially false or totally false.'
What is needed in the interests of the U.S. is a critical review of
U.S.-Turkey relations by the Congress, the Executive Branch and the
academic and think tank communities.
Get active- call and write the President and your representative and
two senators and tell them it is not in the interests of the U.S. to
continue appeasing Turkey and applying a double standard on the rule
of law for Turkey.
Gene Rossides is President
of the American Hellenic Institute and
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.htm l?newsid=7713&lang=US
Dec 5 2007
Executive Branch Appeasement of Turkey Continues
12-4-07
The latest example of the Executive Branch appeasement of Turkey to
the detriment of U.S. interests concerns the Armenian Genocide
resolutions in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 106 and the
Senate, S. Res. 106.
The vote on H. Res. 106 in the House Foreign Affairs Committee took
place on October 10, 2007. The resolution passed 27 to 21 on October
10, 2007, despite a massive lobbying campaign by the White House, the
State and Defense Departments and the Turkish government.
The government of Turkey is spending over $3.6 million annually for
lobbyists including former Congressmen Bob Livingston and Dick
Gephardt, DLA Piper and Fleishman-Hillard, public relations
specialists.
As a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush pledged that he would make
sure that `our nation properly recognizes' that: `The Armenians were
subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and
commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts.'
Bush however failed to use the term genocide in the annual April 24
presidential statement on the subject. President Clinton also refused
to use the term genocide in his April 24 statements. April 24 is the
date generally considered the start of the killings of Armenians in
1915 by the `Young Turks' under the Pashas which lasted into 1923
under Ataturk.
Bush urged the Congress and the members of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee not to vote for H. Res. 106. The State and Defense
Departments went all out to defeat it.
The State Department obtained the signatures of all eight living
former secretaries of state on a joint letter to House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-California) which contained a warning that H. Res. 106, a
non-binding resolution `would endanger our national security
interests in the region, including the safety of our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan.'
I concur with those 27 Representatives who voted for H. Res. 106 and
who, in effect, question the thesis of the joint letter and its
accuracy.
I concur with Congressman Brad Sherman (D-California) a principal
sponsor of H. Res. 106 who said in his opening statement in the
Committee on October 10, 2007 prior to the vote:
`What happened in 1915 to 1923? In the area now encompassed by
Turkey, the Armenian population was two million. Eight years later it
was virtually zero. Our own ambassador to the Ottoman Empire stated
what happened: �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, in their conversations
with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.�
Or turn to Mustaffa Arriff, the last minister of the Interior of the
Ottoman Empire, who said, �Our wartime leaders...decided to
exterminated the Armenians, and they did exterminate them.�
It is right for this Congress to recognize a genocide particularly
when it is denied. Genocide denial is not only the last step of a
genocide, it is the first step in the next genocide. When Hitler had
to convince his cohorts that the world would let them get away with
it, he turned to them and said, �Who, after all, speaks today
of the annihilation of the Armenians?�
Opponents say that Turkey will be angry....This Committee has condemned
particular actions of such great allies such as England and Canada.
We cannot provide genocide denial as one of the perks of friendship
with the United States.
- - - -
We are told that if we pass this resolution Turkey will react against
us. Beyond the moral bankruptcy of such threats lies Turkey�s
long-standing practice of trying to win through intimidation, and
then when a resolution is passed, doing little or nothing. Despite
threats of harsh retribution, Turkey has taken either no steps at
all, or token diplomatic steps, against Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Belgium, Argentina, and more than 10 other countries that have
recognized the Armenian Genocide.
Forty of the United States have recognized the Armenian Genocide, and
their trade with Turkey has gone up. My own state of California
formally recognized the Armenian Genocide in 1997 and our exports to
Turkey have been doing just fine, thank you.
The best example, and the biggest battle, was France, which in 2001
was threatened by Turkey with a trade boycott if it recognized the
Armenian Genocide. The French went ahead and recognized that
genocide. The chart shows you what happened - a near tripling of French
exports to Turkey.
- - - -
This resolution is supported by virtually every scholar of genocide,
and by both the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the
Arab-American Institute.
Finally, we are asked, �Why act now?� Turkey will be a
better ally if we speak the truth. Turkey will be an even better ally
if Turkey speaks the truth.
But we also have very personal reasons to act now. Today, at this
Committee meeting, we have with us four people who survived the
Armenian Genocide. They are in their 90s and 100s. We cannot tell
them, �Wait. Come back in a few years.� Let these
survivors see the country that gave them refuge also give them
justice - while they are still here to see it.'
Clearly there are several alternatives to Incirlik air base in Turkey
for logistical support of our troops in Iraq. And Turkey�s
troops are not welcome in Iraq.
Because of the Turkish threats to stop the use of Incirlik air base
and overflight rights by the U.S. if the House of Representatives
passes H. Res. 106, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the principal sponsors
of the bill have postponed bringing the bill to the House floor for a
vote at this time.
Congressman Sherman put it well when he wrote `Americans must ask
Turkey, when has it become fashionable for friends to threaten
friends?'
Turkey�s negotiating tactics
It is important to remember Turkey�s negotiating tactics.
Martin Gilbert, the world renowned historian and biographer of
Churchill, in a conference at the Library of Congress on the Armenian
Genocide summarized Turkey�s negotiating tactics as follows:
(1)Admit nothing and deny everything;
(2)lie; and
(3)attack, attack, attack.
Turkey�s threats against the U.S. if the House passes H. Res.
106 is an example of `attack.' The Executive Branch (White House,
State and Defense Departments) response is shameful and exposes a
deep weakness in our diplomatic policy. The State and Defense
Departments of successive administration have practiced a policy of
appeasement of Turkey and a policy of double standards on the rule of
law for Turkey.
U.S.-Turkey policy based on false premises
The added disgrace of the Executive Branch policies regarding Turkey
is that they are based on false premises.
Ted Galen Carpenter, the Vice President for Defense and Foreign
Policy Studies of the respected CATO Institute in Washington, D.C. is
one of our nation�s leading defense and foreign policy
analysts. His recent remarks on U.S.-Turkey relations on November 13
at an American Hellenic Institute (AHI) Noon Forum are important. Dr.
Carpenter set forth clearly and cogently the reason why the
`conventional wisdom in American foreign policy circles regarding
Turkey' is in error.
He lists four assumptions of the `conventional wisdom' and then
demonstrates that each of them is `partially false or totally false.'
His remarks should be required reading in the State and Defense
Departments, the National Security Council and the Congress. The AHI
will distribute these remarks to each Representative, Senator, the
President and Executive Branch officials.
Dr. Carpenter stated that the conventional wisdom in American foreign
policy circles regarding Turkey asserts the following four
propositions:
First , that Turkey has been a loyal ally of the United States since
the earliest days of the Cold War and remains a loyal ally.
Second, that Turkey is a force for stability in the Middle East and
Central Asia in addition to its role within NATO and European
affairs.
Third, that Turkey is basically a Western secular country.
Fourth, Turkey is a good candidate that should be admitted to the
European Union in the near future.
Dr. Carpenter in his remarks demonstrated `that every one of those
assumptions is either partially false or totally false.'
What is needed in the interests of the U.S. is a critical review of
U.S.-Turkey relations by the Congress, the Executive Branch and the
academic and think tank communities.
Get active- call and write the President and your representative and
two senators and tell them it is not in the interests of the U.S. to
continue appeasing Turkey and applying a double standard on the rule
of law for Turkey.
Gene Rossides is President
of the American Hellenic Institute and
former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.htm l?newsid=7713&lang=US