Tweet
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE NEEDS RECOGNITION
By Joel Swanson | Sound And Fury
Swarthmore College The Phoenix Online,
Nov 2 2007
I never thought I'd say this, but I recently found myself wishing
that Bush was even more evil than he already is.
Oh, he's an incompassionate dickwad to be sure. Anyone who is willing
to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, but vetoed a
fraction of that spending on healthcare for poor children, can't be a
good guy. But at least if he were more evil, his refusal to support a
Congressional resolution officially recognizing the Armenian genocide
would be less hypocritical, if not laudable.
The Armenian genocide, which occurred from 1915 until 1917, involved
the Turkish government's deportation and massacre of hundreds of
thousands of innocent Armenian civilians. The atrocity is considered,
by many scholars, to be one of the first modern genocides, due to
its massive scale and its attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group.
Despite the extensive historical documentation for this event, the
contemporary Turkish government still officially refers to the crime
as a "relocation" and rejects the term "genocide." Justification for
this stance has varied; at times, the Turkish government insists that
any killings were not reflective of official government policy, while
at other times it claims that Armenians were a legitimate political
threat due to their perceived closeness with Russia, while still other
times it argues that Armenian ethnic "gangs" were attacking Turks. The
reason is ultimately irrelevant; the genocide occurred, and no denial
will change this. This has not stopped Turkey from utilizing a law
prohibiting "insulting Turkishness" to prosecute intellectuals such as
Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk who has publicly acknowledged the genocide.
Despite Turkey's denials, 22 countries have passed resolutions
acknowledging that the events that occurred between 1915 and 1917
fit the modern definition of genocide. Recently, Congressman George
Radanovich (R-CA) introduced H.R. 316, which would have made the
U.S. the twenty-third country to officially recognize the atrocity
as a genocide. President Bush opposed the resolution on the grounds
that it would damage relations between the U.S. and Turkey, a crucial
ally in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The mere proposal of the
resolution was sufficient to cause Turkey to recall its ambassador
to the U.S., and the Turkish government threatened to withdraw its
logistical support for the war effort if the resolution passed. The
chance of the resolution ever passing now is virtually nil.
To be sure, there are legitimate reasons to oppose the resolution.
Anyone operating from a pragmatic, non-idealistic realpolitik
framework could make the argument that it is pointless to pass a
largely ceremonial resolution with few real-life benefits if this
resolution would cause real-life harm to the U.S. in the form of
losing a key ally. But Bush was never practical and non-idealistic.
On the contrary, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, his rhetoric was
always ideological, at least in public. His narrative framed the
U.S. as the bold, gallant liberator, intent only on freeing the poor
innocent Iraqis from the yoke of their evil oppressor Saddam Hussein.
And this is why I almost wish Bush had been more openly evil the
entire time. He wasn't fooling anyone with the feigned nobility of
the Iraq war; if anything, such rhetoric only made the U.S. seem
more sanctimonious. Bush never really cared much about any ideal;
he wanted only to secure his sweetheart private deals for oil and
security companies. No one ever believed in his supposedly idealistic
goals; his failure to do anything at all about the crisis in Darfur
belies all of his supposed humanitarianism. If he had explicitly
said this, and openly adopted a mantra of "Fuck you, we're America,
we don't give a damn what you think unless it's in our interest"
to the rest of the world, at least his current rhetoric on Turkey
would be intellectually consistent.
But Bush never said any of this. Instead, we had to listen to years
of this cowboy prattling on and on about the big bad Saddam and how
we were going to liberate the Iraqi people. You can't claim the moral
high ground by opposing an admittedly horrific regime, and then cozy
up with a government that denies a genocide, as Bush is doing with
Turkey. After all, aren't we all supposed to be terrified of the evil
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at least partially because he
denies the Holocaust?
I'm left almost wishing that Bush had just sold the Iraq war by
bringing out Dick Cheney in a Darth Vader mask, breathing heavily,
intoning, "Never underestimate the power of American self-interest."
But of course Bush would never do this. He's far too wedded to his
fairy tale hero narrative. Indeed, it's almost surprising that he's
so openly basing his opposition to the Armenian genocide resolution
on such practical considerations as not offending Turkey, rather than
trying to claim that this stance too is part of some larger ideal. If
Karl Rove were still around, and not under federal investigation for
potentially leaking the identity of a classified CIA agent, then we
would likely see all sorts of talking points about how Bush is boldly
defending the memories of the innocent Turks who had no choice but
to protect themselves from the marauding gangs of Armenians.
Administration officials would appear on Bill O'Reilly to call those
who acknowledge the Armenian genocide "alarmists" and accuse them of
"hating the Turks." Bush would fly to Turkey and stage a photo-op of
him with his arm around the shoulders of Turkish president Abdullah
Gul, who he would praise as a "bold leader for our troubled times" who
"stands up to those Armenian terrorists." Some Democrat might suggest
meekly that the Armenian genocide might have actually happened, but
conservative talk show host Sean Hannity would proudly announce that
Bush wasn't forced by circumstance to pander to genocide deniers,
but rather that Bush's stance shows "bold leadership" against "those
terrorist-coddling Democrats," who "care too much about the rights
of Armenians to take the steps needed to protect our troops and our
country." Fox News's ratings would soar.
But Karl Rove is gone, and Bush's approval ratings are far too low
for him to attempt such a bold-faced public relations coup. So he's
been reduced to a shell of his former self, too chastened to claim
heroism anymore. Perhaps it's better this way though. If he hadn't
fooled the American people with his false narrative for so long,
maybe we wouldn't be stuck in this unending quagmire in Iraq.
Joel is a sophomore.
http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2007-11- 01/opinions/17623
By Joel Swanson | Sound And Fury
Swarthmore College The Phoenix Online,
Nov 2 2007
I never thought I'd say this, but I recently found myself wishing
that Bush was even more evil than he already is.
Oh, he's an incompassionate dickwad to be sure. Anyone who is willing
to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, but vetoed a
fraction of that spending on healthcare for poor children, can't be a
good guy. But at least if he were more evil, his refusal to support a
Congressional resolution officially recognizing the Armenian genocide
would be less hypocritical, if not laudable.
The Armenian genocide, which occurred from 1915 until 1917, involved
the Turkish government's deportation and massacre of hundreds of
thousands of innocent Armenian civilians. The atrocity is considered,
by many scholars, to be one of the first modern genocides, due to
its massive scale and its attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group.
Despite the extensive historical documentation for this event, the
contemporary Turkish government still officially refers to the crime
as a "relocation" and rejects the term "genocide." Justification for
this stance has varied; at times, the Turkish government insists that
any killings were not reflective of official government policy, while
at other times it claims that Armenians were a legitimate political
threat due to their perceived closeness with Russia, while still other
times it argues that Armenian ethnic "gangs" were attacking Turks. The
reason is ultimately irrelevant; the genocide occurred, and no denial
will change this. This has not stopped Turkey from utilizing a law
prohibiting "insulting Turkishness" to prosecute intellectuals such as
Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk who has publicly acknowledged the genocide.
Despite Turkey's denials, 22 countries have passed resolutions
acknowledging that the events that occurred between 1915 and 1917
fit the modern definition of genocide. Recently, Congressman George
Radanovich (R-CA) introduced H.R. 316, which would have made the
U.S. the twenty-third country to officially recognize the atrocity
as a genocide. President Bush opposed the resolution on the grounds
that it would damage relations between the U.S. and Turkey, a crucial
ally in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The mere proposal of the
resolution was sufficient to cause Turkey to recall its ambassador
to the U.S., and the Turkish government threatened to withdraw its
logistical support for the war effort if the resolution passed. The
chance of the resolution ever passing now is virtually nil.
To be sure, there are legitimate reasons to oppose the resolution.
Anyone operating from a pragmatic, non-idealistic realpolitik
framework could make the argument that it is pointless to pass a
largely ceremonial resolution with few real-life benefits if this
resolution would cause real-life harm to the U.S. in the form of
losing a key ally. But Bush was never practical and non-idealistic.
On the contrary, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, his rhetoric was
always ideological, at least in public. His narrative framed the
U.S. as the bold, gallant liberator, intent only on freeing the poor
innocent Iraqis from the yoke of their evil oppressor Saddam Hussein.
And this is why I almost wish Bush had been more openly evil the
entire time. He wasn't fooling anyone with the feigned nobility of
the Iraq war; if anything, such rhetoric only made the U.S. seem
more sanctimonious. Bush never really cared much about any ideal;
he wanted only to secure his sweetheart private deals for oil and
security companies. No one ever believed in his supposedly idealistic
goals; his failure to do anything at all about the crisis in Darfur
belies all of his supposed humanitarianism. If he had explicitly
said this, and openly adopted a mantra of "Fuck you, we're America,
we don't give a damn what you think unless it's in our interest"
to the rest of the world, at least his current rhetoric on Turkey
would be intellectually consistent.
But Bush never said any of this. Instead, we had to listen to years
of this cowboy prattling on and on about the big bad Saddam and how
we were going to liberate the Iraqi people. You can't claim the moral
high ground by opposing an admittedly horrific regime, and then cozy
up with a government that denies a genocide, as Bush is doing with
Turkey. After all, aren't we all supposed to be terrified of the evil
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at least partially because he
denies the Holocaust?
I'm left almost wishing that Bush had just sold the Iraq war by
bringing out Dick Cheney in a Darth Vader mask, breathing heavily,
intoning, "Never underestimate the power of American self-interest."
But of course Bush would never do this. He's far too wedded to his
fairy tale hero narrative. Indeed, it's almost surprising that he's
so openly basing his opposition to the Armenian genocide resolution
on such practical considerations as not offending Turkey, rather than
trying to claim that this stance too is part of some larger ideal. If
Karl Rove were still around, and not under federal investigation for
potentially leaking the identity of a classified CIA agent, then we
would likely see all sorts of talking points about how Bush is boldly
defending the memories of the innocent Turks who had no choice but
to protect themselves from the marauding gangs of Armenians.
Administration officials would appear on Bill O'Reilly to call those
who acknowledge the Armenian genocide "alarmists" and accuse them of
"hating the Turks." Bush would fly to Turkey and stage a photo-op of
him with his arm around the shoulders of Turkish president Abdullah
Gul, who he would praise as a "bold leader for our troubled times" who
"stands up to those Armenian terrorists." Some Democrat might suggest
meekly that the Armenian genocide might have actually happened, but
conservative talk show host Sean Hannity would proudly announce that
Bush wasn't forced by circumstance to pander to genocide deniers,
but rather that Bush's stance shows "bold leadership" against "those
terrorist-coddling Democrats," who "care too much about the rights
of Armenians to take the steps needed to protect our troops and our
country." Fox News's ratings would soar.
But Karl Rove is gone, and Bush's approval ratings are far too low
for him to attempt such a bold-faced public relations coup. So he's
been reduced to a shell of his former self, too chastened to claim
heroism anymore. Perhaps it's better this way though. If he hadn't
fooled the American people with his false narrative for so long,
maybe we wouldn't be stuck in this unending quagmire in Iraq.
Joel is a sophomore.
http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2007-11- 01/opinions/17623