Tweet
SYMBOLIC GESTURES, EMPTY RESOLUTIONS
By Atossa Abrahamian
CU Columbia Spectator, NY
Nov 1 2007
I must be the only Armenian to agree with President Bush: I don't
think the U.S. should acknowledge and denounce the Armenian genocide.
The House of Representatives voted, as a "symbolic gesture," to
acknowledge the event that has up until the present been referred
to as a "mass killing," or some equally evasive euphemism. When the
attempt at a resolution was announced, this gesture won America
points with almost everyone except some Turkish politicians and
protesters. Anyone with historical knowledge of the event applauded
Nancy Pelosi for pushing the resolution; human rights supporters
were thrilled. Could you believe it? The U.S. was sticking up for
the underdog-to their own detriment! At last, an ethical stance was
being adopted by U.S. officials. Even Christopher Hitchens endorsed
it-it seemed almost too good to be true.
It was, in fact, too good to be true. The declaration means nothing.
Amid the discussion about Turkey getting in the way of America's
ongoing war, no one stopped to think about the language used and what a
"symbolic gesture" actually symbolizes.
By characterizing a condemnation of genocide as a mere "symbol,"
America aimed to appease Turkish officials who, when angered, could
easily threaten to retaliate by making the passage to Iraq difficult
for U.S. troops. By "recognizing" the genocide, America also wanted
to pacify Armenians who have pushed for the genocide's recognition
for decades and have felt marginalized by America's Holocaust
obsession. But what does a gesture that is openly described as merely
symbolic really mean? Will this explicitly symbolic gesture still have
an impact for those who actually care about what happened? I can only
speak for myself, but I am certain that the more others think about
it, the more they will realize how empty of a symbol this is.
Like witty political statements on T-shirts or bumper stickers,
like starlets finding Jesus, it's just for show.
Take an obvious parallel scenario: imagine President Ahmadinejad coming
out and telling Jewish people that he acknowledges the Holocaust and
condemns the Nazis for killing millions of Jews. Then picture him
telling his hard-line allies, who he needs to maintain his status as
the world's premier anti-Zionist, that this was a "non-binding" and
"symbolic" statement. Finally, imagine Mahmoud making it clear that
he was only telling his cronies that it was symbolic so that he could
stay out of trouble with the Jews and the rest of the world. Sounds
terrible, doesn't it? Now reconsider the current situation.
There have been sincere and important political symbols in the past.
Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of his predecessor Stalin in 1958
was meaningful: it symbolized the end of Stalinism and its purges
in Soviet Russia, and enabled the Thaw. John F. Kennedy's famous
"Ich bin ein Berliner" line, in context, was symbolic: it stood for
the end of the Cold War (and an affinity for jelly doughnuts). These
political symbols were important because they signified a change in
attitude-had Khruschchev continued to slaughter innocent Russians, we
would look back at his Secret Speech in disgust, not relief. And this
is precisely why I find the attempted condemnation of the Armenian
genocide so morally reprehensible: it indicates no turning point in
America's actions, and will not change a thing.
It goes without saying that a House resolution cannot change the
past, but my concern is that it will not change the future. Symbols
like these are nothing more than token gestures, meaningless nods,
and political tools, containing no genuine regret, empathy, or
solidarity. Call it what you like, but over a million people died
between 1915 and 1918 and they happened to be Armenian. What's
done is done and the important thing is to stop it from occurring
again-regardless of whether it's in Armenia, Darfur, or Iraq. And
this requires one thing above all else: commitment. This does not
mean preaching empty statements at your allies in an attempt to
gain the moral upper hand, then reassuring them that you did it only
symbolically. Commitment to a cause-condemning genocide-does not mean
having your cake and eating it, too.
I realize the resolution was not proposed maliciously and the
intentions behind it were probably good ones. But it was also a naive,
silly move that was unfair both to Armenia as a genocide victim
seeking an acknowledgment of the atrocities it has gone through and
to a supposed ally facing a serious European identity crisis and
geographical exploitation. Of course Turkey should face the facts
about its past-it's about time. But is it really fair to act as
though Turkey needs America to help it come to terms with Turkey's
own history? This kind of moral imperialism only exacerbates the
ever-present double standards of American foreign policy.
An empty resolution is not the right way to respond to the mass
killings. Symbolically denouncing a genocide means nothing. If America
is ready to moralize at its allies, perhaps it should set a commendable
precedent first. When opposing the resolution, President Bush said
the circumstances are too complicated and the timing is bad-that
America cannot address this situation right now. And for once, he
was absolutely right.
Atossa Abrahamian is a Columbia College senior majoring in
philosophy. The Children of Marx and Coca Cola runs alternate weeks.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/2784 1
By Atossa Abrahamian
CU Columbia Spectator, NY
Nov 1 2007
I must be the only Armenian to agree with President Bush: I don't
think the U.S. should acknowledge and denounce the Armenian genocide.
The House of Representatives voted, as a "symbolic gesture," to
acknowledge the event that has up until the present been referred
to as a "mass killing," or some equally evasive euphemism. When the
attempt at a resolution was announced, this gesture won America
points with almost everyone except some Turkish politicians and
protesters. Anyone with historical knowledge of the event applauded
Nancy Pelosi for pushing the resolution; human rights supporters
were thrilled. Could you believe it? The U.S. was sticking up for
the underdog-to their own detriment! At last, an ethical stance was
being adopted by U.S. officials. Even Christopher Hitchens endorsed
it-it seemed almost too good to be true.
It was, in fact, too good to be true. The declaration means nothing.
Amid the discussion about Turkey getting in the way of America's
ongoing war, no one stopped to think about the language used and what a
"symbolic gesture" actually symbolizes.
By characterizing a condemnation of genocide as a mere "symbol,"
America aimed to appease Turkish officials who, when angered, could
easily threaten to retaliate by making the passage to Iraq difficult
for U.S. troops. By "recognizing" the genocide, America also wanted
to pacify Armenians who have pushed for the genocide's recognition
for decades and have felt marginalized by America's Holocaust
obsession. But what does a gesture that is openly described as merely
symbolic really mean? Will this explicitly symbolic gesture still have
an impact for those who actually care about what happened? I can only
speak for myself, but I am certain that the more others think about
it, the more they will realize how empty of a symbol this is.
Like witty political statements on T-shirts or bumper stickers,
like starlets finding Jesus, it's just for show.
Take an obvious parallel scenario: imagine President Ahmadinejad coming
out and telling Jewish people that he acknowledges the Holocaust and
condemns the Nazis for killing millions of Jews. Then picture him
telling his hard-line allies, who he needs to maintain his status as
the world's premier anti-Zionist, that this was a "non-binding" and
"symbolic" statement. Finally, imagine Mahmoud making it clear that
he was only telling his cronies that it was symbolic so that he could
stay out of trouble with the Jews and the rest of the world. Sounds
terrible, doesn't it? Now reconsider the current situation.
There have been sincere and important political symbols in the past.
Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of his predecessor Stalin in 1958
was meaningful: it symbolized the end of Stalinism and its purges
in Soviet Russia, and enabled the Thaw. John F. Kennedy's famous
"Ich bin ein Berliner" line, in context, was symbolic: it stood for
the end of the Cold War (and an affinity for jelly doughnuts). These
political symbols were important because they signified a change in
attitude-had Khruschchev continued to slaughter innocent Russians, we
would look back at his Secret Speech in disgust, not relief. And this
is precisely why I find the attempted condemnation of the Armenian
genocide so morally reprehensible: it indicates no turning point in
America's actions, and will not change a thing.
It goes without saying that a House resolution cannot change the
past, but my concern is that it will not change the future. Symbols
like these are nothing more than token gestures, meaningless nods,
and political tools, containing no genuine regret, empathy, or
solidarity. Call it what you like, but over a million people died
between 1915 and 1918 and they happened to be Armenian. What's
done is done and the important thing is to stop it from occurring
again-regardless of whether it's in Armenia, Darfur, or Iraq. And
this requires one thing above all else: commitment. This does not
mean preaching empty statements at your allies in an attempt to
gain the moral upper hand, then reassuring them that you did it only
symbolically. Commitment to a cause-condemning genocide-does not mean
having your cake and eating it, too.
I realize the resolution was not proposed maliciously and the
intentions behind it were probably good ones. But it was also a naive,
silly move that was unfair both to Armenia as a genocide victim
seeking an acknowledgment of the atrocities it has gone through and
to a supposed ally facing a serious European identity crisis and
geographical exploitation. Of course Turkey should face the facts
about its past-it's about time. But is it really fair to act as
though Turkey needs America to help it come to terms with Turkey's
own history? This kind of moral imperialism only exacerbates the
ever-present double standards of American foreign policy.
An empty resolution is not the right way to respond to the mass
killings. Symbolically denouncing a genocide means nothing. If America
is ready to moralize at its allies, perhaps it should set a commendable
precedent first. When opposing the resolution, President Bush said
the circumstances are too complicated and the timing is bad-that
America cannot address this situation right now. And for once, he
was absolutely right.
Atossa Abrahamian is a Columbia College senior majoring in
philosophy. The Children of Marx and Coca Cola runs alternate weeks.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/2784 1