Tweet
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: WHEN PURITY MEETS PRAGMATISM
The Gate - National Journal, DC
http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/10/the_ armenian_genocide_when_pur.php
Oct 10 2007
Let's get this detail out of the way: The United States does not brook
genocide. Maybe this country does not always go far enough to stop
genocide where it occurs (Rwanda, Sudan), but it has not ignored,
let alone denied, the mass extermination of an ethnic group since
World War II. What the U.S. always does do in reaction to genocide
is condemn the killing wherever it occurs.
So why the opposition to a nonbinding House resolution that compels
the U.S. government to formally recognize the 1915-17 mass killings
of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide -- something George
H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did not do as commander
in chief?
The answer, of course, is Turkey's resistance to the resolution.
Almost anywhere else in the world, official government condemnation of
genocide is an easy position for Washington to take. Not so with the
Armenian genocide, because Turkey holds many cards, and the U.S. is
in no position to strong-arm anyone it might still count as an ally
in the war on terror.
President Bush abruptly capped a statement to Congress on FISA
legislation today with a warning not to press forward on the
resolution. "We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian
people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response
to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm
to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on
terror," he said.
As the Armenian-American community well knows, Bush (and his father)
promised to formally recognize the genocide in their presidential
campaigns, but dropped the G-word upon arriving into office. Turkey's
pivotal geographic location in a region largely hostile to U.S.
interests makes angering Ankara something that is most definitely
not in U.S. interests. When Turkey's mad, we feel it. For example,
Ankara's restrictions on U.S. military movements before the 2003
invasion of Iraq hampered initial troop levels.
Yesterday, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., reversed her position on
condemning the Armenian genocide and urged House Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Tom Lantos to yank the resolution.
"Following a visit to Turkey earlier this year that included meetings
with Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox
Patriarch... I have great concern that this is the wrong time for
the Congress to consider this measure," the former ranking Democrat
on the House Intelligence Committee wrote in a letter [PDF]. "I
have made 18 trips to the Middle East region over the past 14 years
and am persuaded that Turkey plays a critically important role in
moderating extremist forces there. Given the nature of the threat,
I believe it is imperative to nurture that role -- however valid from
the historical perspective, we should avoid taking steps that would
embarrass or isolate the Turkish leadership."
"Embarrass" being the key word here. On its own, Turkey has gone to
some lengths to meet Armenians halfway, and newly elected President
Abdullah Gul has said he favors reforming a widely ridiculed law
penalizing anyone who writes or talks about the genocide or anything
else considered an "insult" to Turkish culture. But government
officials have warned Washington of the price it will pay should the
resolution pass. "About 70 percent of all air cargo going into Iraq
goes through Turkey. About a third of the fuel that [U.S. troops]
consume comes from Turkey," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates this
morning, in remarks reported by the Washington Times.
"This is not because the United States fails to recognize the
terrible tragedy of 1915, the mass killings that took place there,"
said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who'd attended a meeting
with Gates at the White House. "The passage of this resolution at
this time would indeed be problematic for everything that we are
trying to do in the Middle East, because we are very dependent on a
good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts." All eight of
the living former secretaries of state have signed a letter urging
Congress to pull the resolution, the Washington Post reports.
Earlier this week, Turkey authorized military action against Kurdish
rebels in northern Iraq, which could potentially destabilize that
relatively peaceful region. The Plank's Michael Crowley is not alone
in suspecting Ankara's action was timed to coincide with today's
committee vote in the House.
Turkey had already unleashed an army of lobbyists on Washington
in anticipation of the House resolution, which is expected to pass
easily if it makes it onto the floor. A Senate version has attracted
33 sponsors. Both Democratic leaders of Congress have indicated they
support the measures and will bring them before the full chambers.
Despite its threats, Turkey is under some pressure itself. The only
Muslim member of NATO wants badly to be a member of the European
Union, while that body's member nations have made clear that softening
Turkey's position on the genocide is a deal-maker. Several nations,
including France, were already resistant to the overwhelmingly
Muslim nation's inclusion in the body, and some observers believe
they are harping on the Armenian genocide as a way to hang out the
"Not Welcome" sign.
Washington does not join Europe in its anti-Turkey sentiment for
at least one good reason: that country's potential to be a become a
beacon in the poverty- and violence-stricken Muslim world. Turkey is
one of the few Muslim nations allied with Israel -- a relationship
it has also threatened hangs in the balance with today's vote.
There's an argument to be made that Turkish-Armenian reconciliation
should be allowed to unfold on its own, The Economist observed
earlier this month. The Los Angeles Times' Matt Welch, meanwhile,
is criticizing lawmakers backing away from the resolution. In 2004,
the New Yorker published a fascinating vignette on how the Gray
Lady finally came around to using the G-word to describe the Ottoman
massacres.
The Gate - National Journal, DC
http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/10/the_ armenian_genocide_when_pur.php
Oct 10 2007
Let's get this detail out of the way: The United States does not brook
genocide. Maybe this country does not always go far enough to stop
genocide where it occurs (Rwanda, Sudan), but it has not ignored,
let alone denied, the mass extermination of an ethnic group since
World War II. What the U.S. always does do in reaction to genocide
is condemn the killing wherever it occurs.
So why the opposition to a nonbinding House resolution that compels
the U.S. government to formally recognize the 1915-17 mass killings
of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide -- something George
H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did not do as commander
in chief?
The answer, of course, is Turkey's resistance to the resolution.
Almost anywhere else in the world, official government condemnation of
genocide is an easy position for Washington to take. Not so with the
Armenian genocide, because Turkey holds many cards, and the U.S. is
in no position to strong-arm anyone it might still count as an ally
in the war on terror.
President Bush abruptly capped a statement to Congress on FISA
legislation today with a warning not to press forward on the
resolution. "We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian
people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response
to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm
to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on
terror," he said.
As the Armenian-American community well knows, Bush (and his father)
promised to formally recognize the genocide in their presidential
campaigns, but dropped the G-word upon arriving into office. Turkey's
pivotal geographic location in a region largely hostile to U.S.
interests makes angering Ankara something that is most definitely
not in U.S. interests. When Turkey's mad, we feel it. For example,
Ankara's restrictions on U.S. military movements before the 2003
invasion of Iraq hampered initial troop levels.
Yesterday, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., reversed her position on
condemning the Armenian genocide and urged House Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Tom Lantos to yank the resolution.
"Following a visit to Turkey earlier this year that included meetings
with Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, the Armenian Orthodox
Patriarch... I have great concern that this is the wrong time for
the Congress to consider this measure," the former ranking Democrat
on the House Intelligence Committee wrote in a letter [PDF]. "I
have made 18 trips to the Middle East region over the past 14 years
and am persuaded that Turkey plays a critically important role in
moderating extremist forces there. Given the nature of the threat,
I believe it is imperative to nurture that role -- however valid from
the historical perspective, we should avoid taking steps that would
embarrass or isolate the Turkish leadership."
"Embarrass" being the key word here. On its own, Turkey has gone to
some lengths to meet Armenians halfway, and newly elected President
Abdullah Gul has said he favors reforming a widely ridiculed law
penalizing anyone who writes or talks about the genocide or anything
else considered an "insult" to Turkish culture. But government
officials have warned Washington of the price it will pay should the
resolution pass. "About 70 percent of all air cargo going into Iraq
goes through Turkey. About a third of the fuel that [U.S. troops]
consume comes from Turkey," said Defense Secretary Robert Gates this
morning, in remarks reported by the Washington Times.
"This is not because the United States fails to recognize the
terrible tragedy of 1915, the mass killings that took place there,"
said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who'd attended a meeting
with Gates at the White House. "The passage of this resolution at
this time would indeed be problematic for everything that we are
trying to do in the Middle East, because we are very dependent on a
good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts." All eight of
the living former secretaries of state have signed a letter urging
Congress to pull the resolution, the Washington Post reports.
Earlier this week, Turkey authorized military action against Kurdish
rebels in northern Iraq, which could potentially destabilize that
relatively peaceful region. The Plank's Michael Crowley is not alone
in suspecting Ankara's action was timed to coincide with today's
committee vote in the House.
Turkey had already unleashed an army of lobbyists on Washington
in anticipation of the House resolution, which is expected to pass
easily if it makes it onto the floor. A Senate version has attracted
33 sponsors. Both Democratic leaders of Congress have indicated they
support the measures and will bring them before the full chambers.
Despite its threats, Turkey is under some pressure itself. The only
Muslim member of NATO wants badly to be a member of the European
Union, while that body's member nations have made clear that softening
Turkey's position on the genocide is a deal-maker. Several nations,
including France, were already resistant to the overwhelmingly
Muslim nation's inclusion in the body, and some observers believe
they are harping on the Armenian genocide as a way to hang out the
"Not Welcome" sign.
Washington does not join Europe in its anti-Turkey sentiment for
at least one good reason: that country's potential to be a become a
beacon in the poverty- and violence-stricken Muslim world. Turkey is
one of the few Muslim nations allied with Israel -- a relationship
it has also threatened hangs in the balance with today's vote.
There's an argument to be made that Turkish-Armenian reconciliation
should be allowed to unfold on its own, The Economist observed
earlier this month. The Los Angeles Times' Matt Welch, meanwhile,
is criticizing lawmakers backing away from the resolution. In 2004,
the New Yorker published a fascinating vignette on how the Gray
Lady finally came around to using the G-word to describe the Ottoman
massacres.