Tweet
Los Angeles Times, CA
Feb 4 2006
EDITORIAL
New hope for genocide resolution
Measure calling for the president to acknowledge the Armenian
genocide might finally pass Congress.
February 4, 2007
LAST WEEK, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) engaged in what has become
a biannual congressional ritual: Introducing a nonbinding resolution
instructing the president of the United States to call Turkey's
Ottoman-era slaughter of Armenians a genocide. Unlike in years past,
however, this time the symbolic but important legislation actually
has a legitimate chance at passage.
Two recent developments have created momentum. First, the Democratic
Party, which has historically been more sympathetic to the
resolution, now controls Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San
Francisco) in particular has taken a keen interest in bringing the
matter to a vote. Second, a 17-year-old gunman last month executed in
cold blood the respected Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on a
crowded Istanbul street.
The slaying of Dink, who had been prosecuted for acknowledging the
genocide, has sent a collective shiver down Turkey's spine,
triggering street demonstrations and renewed calls for the government
to change its policy. It is still a crime in Turkey to speak the
truth about a period of history whose accepted worldwide
interpretation Ankara still denies.
Schiff's resolution merely calls on the president to ensure that U.S.
foreign policy "reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity"
regarding the genocide and that he use the G-word during his annual
message commemorating the National Day of Remembrance of Man's
Inhumanity to Man on April 24, the date in 1915 when Turkey rounded
up 250 Armenian intellectuals to be slaughtered. That the resolution
is so mild makes the White House's opposition all the more vexing.
Even though President Bush made a campaign promise in 2000 to use the
word "genocide," his flip-flop is neither surprising nor mysterious -
Ankara has considerable diplomatic influence, and Turkey is too
valuable an ally to alienate with congressional resolutions. Yet the
U.S. is at its best when it chooses truth over expedience, especially
in matters as grave as genocide. It's hard to say "never again"
convincingly if you're too afraid to speak bluntly about what you aim
to prevent.
Feb 4 2006
EDITORIAL
New hope for genocide resolution
Measure calling for the president to acknowledge the Armenian
genocide might finally pass Congress.
February 4, 2007
LAST WEEK, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) engaged in what has become
a biannual congressional ritual: Introducing a nonbinding resolution
instructing the president of the United States to call Turkey's
Ottoman-era slaughter of Armenians a genocide. Unlike in years past,
however, this time the symbolic but important legislation actually
has a legitimate chance at passage.
Two recent developments have created momentum. First, the Democratic
Party, which has historically been more sympathetic to the
resolution, now controls Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San
Francisco) in particular has taken a keen interest in bringing the
matter to a vote. Second, a 17-year-old gunman last month executed in
cold blood the respected Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink on a
crowded Istanbul street.
The slaying of Dink, who had been prosecuted for acknowledging the
genocide, has sent a collective shiver down Turkey's spine,
triggering street demonstrations and renewed calls for the government
to change its policy. It is still a crime in Turkey to speak the
truth about a period of history whose accepted worldwide
interpretation Ankara still denies.
Schiff's resolution merely calls on the president to ensure that U.S.
foreign policy "reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity"
regarding the genocide and that he use the G-word during his annual
message commemorating the National Day of Remembrance of Man's
Inhumanity to Man on April 24, the date in 1915 when Turkey rounded
up 250 Armenian intellectuals to be slaughtered. That the resolution
is so mild makes the White House's opposition all the more vexing.
Even though President Bush made a campaign promise in 2000 to use the
word "genocide," his flip-flop is neither surprising nor mysterious -
Ankara has considerable diplomatic influence, and Turkey is too
valuable an ally to alienate with congressional resolutions. Yet the
U.S. is at its best when it chooses truth over expedience, especially
in matters as grave as genocide. It's hard to say "never again"
convincingly if you're too afraid to speak bluntly about what you aim
to prevent.