Tweet
House Committee on Foreign Affairs
CommitteePRESS
October 10, 2007
Verbatim, as delivered
Opening Statement by Chairman Lantos at markup of
H. Res. 106
Today we are not considering whether the Armenian people were
persecuted and died in huge numbers at the hands of Ottoman troops in
the early 20th Century. There is unanimity in the Congress and across
the country that these atrocities took place. If the resolution before
us stated that fact alone, it would pass unanimously.
The controversy lies in whether to make it United States policy at
this moment in history to apply a single word genocide to encompass
this enormous blot on human history.
The United Nations Convention on Genocide defines the term as a number
of actions, and I quote, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. These actions
include killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
the group, and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in
part.
Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the
time of the atrocities, wrote -- and I am quoting -- I am confident
that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible
episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem
almost insignificant when compared with the sufferings of the Armenian
race in 1915.
The leadership of the United States has been in universal agreement in
condemning the atrocities but has been divided about using the term
genocide.
On one occasion, President Ronald Reagan referred to, I quote, the
genocide of the Armenians.
But subsequent Presidents -- George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush, have refrained from using the word out of
deference to Turkish sentiments on the matter.
In recognizing this tragedy, some in Congress have seen common themes
with the debate our committee held earlier this year on a resolution
about another historic injustice the tens of thousands of so-called
Comfort Women forced into sexual slavery by Imperial Japan. The
current Japanese government went to great length to attempt to prevent
debate on that matter, and dire predictions were made that passage of
such a resolution would harm U.S.-Japan relations. Those dire
consequences never materialized.
A key feature distinguishing todays debate from the one on the Comfort
Women resolution is that U.S. troops are currently engaged in wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops depend on a major Turkish airbase for
access to the fighting fronts, and it serves as a critical part of the
supply lines to those fronts. A growing majority in Congress, and I am
among them, strongly oppose continued U.S. troop involvement in the
civil war in Iraq, but none of us wants to see those supply lines
threatened or abruptly cut.
All eight living former secretaries of state recently cautioned
Congress on this matter. And I quote, It is our view, write former
Secretaries Albright, Baker, Christopher, Eagleburger, Haig,
Kissinger, Powell and Shultz, that passage of this resolution could
endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and damage efforts to
promote reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.
Three former secretaries of defense Carlucci, Cohen and Perry this
week advised Congress that passage of this resolution, and I quote
again, would have a direct, detrimental effect on the operational
capabilities, safety and well being of our armed forces in Iraq and in
Afghanistan.
Members of this committee have a sobering choice to make. We have to
weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people
and to condemn this historic nightmare through the use of the word
genocide against the risk that it could cause young men and women in
the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier
price than they are currently paying. This is a vote of conscience,
and the Committee will work its will.
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_displa y.asp?id=430
CommitteePRESS
October 10, 2007
Verbatim, as delivered
Opening Statement by Chairman Lantos at markup of
H. Res. 106
Today we are not considering whether the Armenian people were
persecuted and died in huge numbers at the hands of Ottoman troops in
the early 20th Century. There is unanimity in the Congress and across
the country that these atrocities took place. If the resolution before
us stated that fact alone, it would pass unanimously.
The controversy lies in whether to make it United States policy at
this moment in history to apply a single word genocide to encompass
this enormous blot on human history.
The United Nations Convention on Genocide defines the term as a number
of actions, and I quote, committed with intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. These actions
include killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
the group, and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in
part.
Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the
time of the atrocities, wrote -- and I am quoting -- I am confident
that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible
episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem
almost insignificant when compared with the sufferings of the Armenian
race in 1915.
The leadership of the United States has been in universal agreement in
condemning the atrocities but has been divided about using the term
genocide.
On one occasion, President Ronald Reagan referred to, I quote, the
genocide of the Armenians.
But subsequent Presidents -- George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush, have refrained from using the word out of
deference to Turkish sentiments on the matter.
In recognizing this tragedy, some in Congress have seen common themes
with the debate our committee held earlier this year on a resolution
about another historic injustice the tens of thousands of so-called
Comfort Women forced into sexual slavery by Imperial Japan. The
current Japanese government went to great length to attempt to prevent
debate on that matter, and dire predictions were made that passage of
such a resolution would harm U.S.-Japan relations. Those dire
consequences never materialized.
A key feature distinguishing todays debate from the one on the Comfort
Women resolution is that U.S. troops are currently engaged in wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops depend on a major Turkish airbase for
access to the fighting fronts, and it serves as a critical part of the
supply lines to those fronts. A growing majority in Congress, and I am
among them, strongly oppose continued U.S. troop involvement in the
civil war in Iraq, but none of us wants to see those supply lines
threatened or abruptly cut.
All eight living former secretaries of state recently cautioned
Congress on this matter. And I quote, It is our view, write former
Secretaries Albright, Baker, Christopher, Eagleburger, Haig,
Kissinger, Powell and Shultz, that passage of this resolution could
endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and damage efforts to
promote reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey.
Three former secretaries of defense Carlucci, Cohen and Perry this
week advised Congress that passage of this resolution, and I quote
again, would have a direct, detrimental effect on the operational
capabilities, safety and well being of our armed forces in Iraq and in
Afghanistan.
Members of this committee have a sobering choice to make. We have to
weigh the desire to express our solidarity with the Armenian people
and to condemn this historic nightmare through the use of the word
genocide against the risk that it could cause young men and women in
the uniform of the United States armed services to pay an even heavier
price than they are currently paying. This is a vote of conscience,
and the Committee will work its will.
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press_displa y.asp?id=430