Tweet
ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807
Fax: 416-512-1736
E-mail: [email protected]
www.zoryaninstitute.org
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Torrey Swan
Tel: 416-250-9807
DATE: November 26, 2007
The Politics of Genocide Recognition: Moralpolitik vs. Realpolitik
Toronto, Canada - "How does passage of Resolution 106 endanger the
security of Americans, as claimed by top American officials, and become
an obstacle to the War on Terror?" asked Greg Sarkissian, President
of the Zoryan Institute. He was introducing Prof. Simon Payaslian,
the Charles K. and Elisabeth M. Kenosian Professor in Modern Armenian
History and Literature at Boston University, who was invited to give
a public lecture on November 11, titled "The Politics of Genocide
Recognition in the United States: Realpolitik versus Moralpolitik."
"What has caused the US administration to take such a strong
position so obviously contrary to truth and justice?" Sarkissian
continued. "Why, according to President Bush, is this resolution not
the appropriate response and not the right time? What is an appropriate
response? When is the right time for truth and justice?
Why is the moral position on the Armenian Genocide considered to be
contrary to American national interest? Why did the House Foreign
Relations Committee pass such a resolution to begin with?"
A few weeks ago, Armenians around the world were in euphoria over
the passage of Resolution 106 by the House of Representatives'
Foreign Relations Committee, regarding official recognition of the
Armenian Genocide. The resolution passed in spite of the opposition
of the President of the United States, eight former Secretaries of
State, various major Congressional subcommittee chairpersons, former
House leaders Richard Gephardt and Robert Livingston (now both paid
lobbyists), major media like CNN, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, etc.
Joining this opposition were the President of Israel, leaders of
the Jewish community of Turkey, and special interest groups like the
Anti-Defamation League, out of fear for the security of the Jewish
community in Turkey, and to preserve the strategic relationship
between Israel and Turkey. This is in spite of the incontestable
evidence of the Genocide, attested to by the vast majority of experts,
as represented by the International Association of Genocide Scholars
not to mention the distinguished International Center for Transitional
Justice. Within days, however, many Representatives withdrew their
support, and the vote by the full House was postponed indefinitely.
How does this happen and why so quickly?
In an effort to answer these and related questions, Prof. Payaslian,
the holder of a Ph.D. in Political Science (Wayne State University)
and another in Armenian History (UCLA), put H. Res. 106 into context.
He explained that historically, going all the way back to George
Washington, Congress has adopted some moral issue during or after
war, in an attempt to take back the special powers assumed by the
President. He cited as an example the most recent case, whereby after
the war in the former Yugoslavia, Congress tried to impeach President
Clinton over the Lewinsky Affair. In his opinion, Resolution 106 was
such a vehicle, used by the Democratic controlled Congress.
Payaslian then provided an overview of Turco-American relations
from the 18th century to the present. It began as America, a former
British colony, continued British policy of maintaining commercial
and political interests with the Ottoman Empire. He emphasized the
continuance of this policy, even during the Armenian Genocide. To
demonstrate the importance of this relationship he gave the example
of President Wilson, who in response to US Ambassador Morgenthau's
critiques of Turkish policy towards the Armenians, contacted the
party controlling the Turkish government to inform them that the US
would remain neutral.
In the 1930s, Turkey, the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire, had enough
clout to get the US State Department to successfully stop production
of a Hollywood film, Forty Days of Musa Dagh, depicting the heroic
battle of Armenians who were facing systematic deportations and
massacres during the Genocide.
After World War II and the start of the Cold War, Turkey gained
prominence as a NATO ally and a bulwark against the Soviet Union.
More recently, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the
reemergence of fundamentalist Islam, the US, Turkey and Israel,
having seen their political, military and economic interests in the
region aligned have formed a "triple alliance."
These relations were further strengthened after September 11,
2001 by Turkey's cooperation in the War on Terror and its strategic
provision of the Incirlik Air Base as a supply route for US forces
in Iraq. These relations are reinforced by massive consistent US
military aid being sent to Turkey (the third largest recipient,
after Israel and Egypt), and it reciprocating by purchasing 70% of its
annual military equipment from US suppliers. Furthermore, since 1999,
bi-lateral trade has doubled as economic cooperation has intensified.
These relationships are continually managed by extensive lobbying
campaigns as well as formal diplomatic missions.
However, despite Turkey's success in developing leverages with America,
it became apparent by 2000 that its public relations campaign could not
prevent a series of Armenian Genocide affirmations being proclaimed by
numerous US states and various governments, institutions and academics
around the world. Since then, there has been a transformation in
Turkey's tactics with less emphasis on promoting denial of the Genocide
and more emphasis on Turkey's importance to American national security
concerns, tactics perfectly aligned with the new national security
paradigm of the Bush Administration.
In contrast with all this, the Armenians had the moral issue of the
Genocide as their main point of influence with the US government.
However, politicians, motivated by their political and personal
interests, are not always sincere in their handling of moral issues.
In his conclusion, Payaslian affirmed what many already know, that
"Realpolitik will always trump Moralpolitik in American foreign
policy." He added, however, that the way forward "is to recognize
this reality, face it, and educate our youth about it, rather than
perpetuate this common mythology that the United States has some
special love for the Armenians." The professor called on Armenians
to look for new strategies.
Following an intense question and answer period, Sarkissian,
responding to Payaslian's call for education and new directions,
pointed out some practical steps in this respect. "Fundamental to the
process of reconciliation between Armenians and Turks," he exhorted,
"is reaching out and educating Turkish civil society about the reality
of the Genocide. This knowledge is essential for them to be able
to challenge the state-imposed narrative of the Armenian Genocide,
because its imposition, the suppression of fact, takes away from the
democratization process in Turkey. Moreover, their ability to discuss
the Armenian Genocide means discussion about their past which also is
tabooed by the Turkish state, as it opens up questions about Turkey's
mistreatment of other minorities, especially in light of the Kurdish
question today." Sarkissian highlighted the fact that "the Genocide
is now spoken of every day in Turkey, which was not the case five
years ago, and this happened partially because of our determination
as a community in raising awareness amongst ourselves and others, and
partially because the Genocide was used by third parties for their own
political interests, such as keeping Turkey out of the European Union."
Sarkissian also referred to a project known as the Common Body of
Knowledge, stating that "with the aim of reaching civil society,
Zoryan has been involved, along with other scholars and institutes,
in creating definitive literature about the Genocide, that has
Turkish and German archival sources as a base, and disseminating it
in English and in Turkish. Another part of the project concerns the
legal proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunals prosecuting the
organizers of the Genocide for their crimes.
Sarkissian concluded that "as Prof. Payaslian's lecture has led us
to understand, a pragmatic approach and education of our youth is
essential for change to take place. However, real change is only
possible if Turkish society will make this happen from within. We
have seen such change in the US civil rights movement and the ending
of apartheid in South Africa. While the moral argument is a necessary
foundation to any legitimate claim for justice, it is not sufficient
for its achievement. Much is still to be done. Given the enormity
of the leverages that Turkey has, there is a responsibility on the
Armenian community, and those who stand for justice and human rights,
to support institutions, like Zoryan, that are working to affect real
change in Turkish-Armenian relations."
This lecture, was presented by the Zoryan Institute of Canada, with
the participation of the Armenian General Benevolent Union of Toronto,
the Armenian National Committee of Toronto, the Armenian Student
Association (University of Toronto), the Armenian World Alliance, the
Bolsahay Cultural Association, the Canadian Armenian Business Council
(Ontario), the Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church, the Knights of
Vartan (Alishan Lodge), St. Gregory's Armenian Catholic Church, and
the Union of Marash Armenians of Toronto. In addition to the above
organizations, the following individuals and businesses provided
sponsorship: Arax Jewellers, Byron Hill Corp., and Mr. Vazken Terzian.
Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807
Fax: 416-512-1736
E-mail: [email protected]
www.zoryaninstitute.org
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Torrey Swan
Tel: 416-250-9807
DATE: November 26, 2007
The Politics of Genocide Recognition: Moralpolitik vs. Realpolitik
Toronto, Canada - "How does passage of Resolution 106 endanger the
security of Americans, as claimed by top American officials, and become
an obstacle to the War on Terror?" asked Greg Sarkissian, President
of the Zoryan Institute. He was introducing Prof. Simon Payaslian,
the Charles K. and Elisabeth M. Kenosian Professor in Modern Armenian
History and Literature at Boston University, who was invited to give
a public lecture on November 11, titled "The Politics of Genocide
Recognition in the United States: Realpolitik versus Moralpolitik."
"What has caused the US administration to take such a strong
position so obviously contrary to truth and justice?" Sarkissian
continued. "Why, according to President Bush, is this resolution not
the appropriate response and not the right time? What is an appropriate
response? When is the right time for truth and justice?
Why is the moral position on the Armenian Genocide considered to be
contrary to American national interest? Why did the House Foreign
Relations Committee pass such a resolution to begin with?"
A few weeks ago, Armenians around the world were in euphoria over
the passage of Resolution 106 by the House of Representatives'
Foreign Relations Committee, regarding official recognition of the
Armenian Genocide. The resolution passed in spite of the opposition
of the President of the United States, eight former Secretaries of
State, various major Congressional subcommittee chairpersons, former
House leaders Richard Gephardt and Robert Livingston (now both paid
lobbyists), major media like CNN, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, etc.
Joining this opposition were the President of Israel, leaders of
the Jewish community of Turkey, and special interest groups like the
Anti-Defamation League, out of fear for the security of the Jewish
community in Turkey, and to preserve the strategic relationship
between Israel and Turkey. This is in spite of the incontestable
evidence of the Genocide, attested to by the vast majority of experts,
as represented by the International Association of Genocide Scholars
not to mention the distinguished International Center for Transitional
Justice. Within days, however, many Representatives withdrew their
support, and the vote by the full House was postponed indefinitely.
How does this happen and why so quickly?
In an effort to answer these and related questions, Prof. Payaslian,
the holder of a Ph.D. in Political Science (Wayne State University)
and another in Armenian History (UCLA), put H. Res. 106 into context.
He explained that historically, going all the way back to George
Washington, Congress has adopted some moral issue during or after
war, in an attempt to take back the special powers assumed by the
President. He cited as an example the most recent case, whereby after
the war in the former Yugoslavia, Congress tried to impeach President
Clinton over the Lewinsky Affair. In his opinion, Resolution 106 was
such a vehicle, used by the Democratic controlled Congress.
Payaslian then provided an overview of Turco-American relations
from the 18th century to the present. It began as America, a former
British colony, continued British policy of maintaining commercial
and political interests with the Ottoman Empire. He emphasized the
continuance of this policy, even during the Armenian Genocide. To
demonstrate the importance of this relationship he gave the example
of President Wilson, who in response to US Ambassador Morgenthau's
critiques of Turkish policy towards the Armenians, contacted the
party controlling the Turkish government to inform them that the US
would remain neutral.
In the 1930s, Turkey, the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire, had enough
clout to get the US State Department to successfully stop production
of a Hollywood film, Forty Days of Musa Dagh, depicting the heroic
battle of Armenians who were facing systematic deportations and
massacres during the Genocide.
After World War II and the start of the Cold War, Turkey gained
prominence as a NATO ally and a bulwark against the Soviet Union.
More recently, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the
reemergence of fundamentalist Islam, the US, Turkey and Israel,
having seen their political, military and economic interests in the
region aligned have formed a "triple alliance."
These relations were further strengthened after September 11,
2001 by Turkey's cooperation in the War on Terror and its strategic
provision of the Incirlik Air Base as a supply route for US forces
in Iraq. These relations are reinforced by massive consistent US
military aid being sent to Turkey (the third largest recipient,
after Israel and Egypt), and it reciprocating by purchasing 70% of its
annual military equipment from US suppliers. Furthermore, since 1999,
bi-lateral trade has doubled as economic cooperation has intensified.
These relationships are continually managed by extensive lobbying
campaigns as well as formal diplomatic missions.
However, despite Turkey's success in developing leverages with America,
it became apparent by 2000 that its public relations campaign could not
prevent a series of Armenian Genocide affirmations being proclaimed by
numerous US states and various governments, institutions and academics
around the world. Since then, there has been a transformation in
Turkey's tactics with less emphasis on promoting denial of the Genocide
and more emphasis on Turkey's importance to American national security
concerns, tactics perfectly aligned with the new national security
paradigm of the Bush Administration.
In contrast with all this, the Armenians had the moral issue of the
Genocide as their main point of influence with the US government.
However, politicians, motivated by their political and personal
interests, are not always sincere in their handling of moral issues.
In his conclusion, Payaslian affirmed what many already know, that
"Realpolitik will always trump Moralpolitik in American foreign
policy." He added, however, that the way forward "is to recognize
this reality, face it, and educate our youth about it, rather than
perpetuate this common mythology that the United States has some
special love for the Armenians." The professor called on Armenians
to look for new strategies.
Following an intense question and answer period, Sarkissian,
responding to Payaslian's call for education and new directions,
pointed out some practical steps in this respect. "Fundamental to the
process of reconciliation between Armenians and Turks," he exhorted,
"is reaching out and educating Turkish civil society about the reality
of the Genocide. This knowledge is essential for them to be able
to challenge the state-imposed narrative of the Armenian Genocide,
because its imposition, the suppression of fact, takes away from the
democratization process in Turkey. Moreover, their ability to discuss
the Armenian Genocide means discussion about their past which also is
tabooed by the Turkish state, as it opens up questions about Turkey's
mistreatment of other minorities, especially in light of the Kurdish
question today." Sarkissian highlighted the fact that "the Genocide
is now spoken of every day in Turkey, which was not the case five
years ago, and this happened partially because of our determination
as a community in raising awareness amongst ourselves and others, and
partially because the Genocide was used by third parties for their own
political interests, such as keeping Turkey out of the European Union."
Sarkissian also referred to a project known as the Common Body of
Knowledge, stating that "with the aim of reaching civil society,
Zoryan has been involved, along with other scholars and institutes,
in creating definitive literature about the Genocide, that has
Turkish and German archival sources as a base, and disseminating it
in English and in Turkish. Another part of the project concerns the
legal proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunals prosecuting the
organizers of the Genocide for their crimes.
Sarkissian concluded that "as Prof. Payaslian's lecture has led us
to understand, a pragmatic approach and education of our youth is
essential for change to take place. However, real change is only
possible if Turkish society will make this happen from within. We
have seen such change in the US civil rights movement and the ending
of apartheid in South Africa. While the moral argument is a necessary
foundation to any legitimate claim for justice, it is not sufficient
for its achievement. Much is still to be done. Given the enormity
of the leverages that Turkey has, there is a responsibility on the
Armenian community, and those who stand for justice and human rights,
to support institutions, like Zoryan, that are working to affect real
change in Turkish-Armenian relations."
This lecture, was presented by the Zoryan Institute of Canada, with
the participation of the Armenian General Benevolent Union of Toronto,
the Armenian National Committee of Toronto, the Armenian Student
Association (University of Toronto), the Armenian World Alliance, the
Bolsahay Cultural Association, the Canadian Armenian Business Council
(Ontario), the Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church, the Knights of
Vartan (Alishan Lodge), St. Gregory's Armenian Catholic Church, and
the Union of Marash Armenians of Toronto. In addition to the above
organizations, the following individuals and businesses provided
sponsorship: Arax Jewellers, Byron Hill Corp., and Mr. Vazken Terzian.