Tweet
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AS A CASE STUDY IN TODAY'S MIDDLE EAST RELATIONS
By Tracy Dove, Ph.D, The Russia News Service
U.S. Politics Today, DC
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=3 49125
Oct 10 2007
A sensitive bill is about to go before the US Congress, and it
won't be the first time that this initiative has been struck down
by careful congressmen- only this time for the wrong reasons. The
word "genocide" is not taken lightly in international arenas, and
this means that governments have to be especially careful of which
atrocities they recognize as genocide and which they give credence
to as horrible human tragedies- but no more. If the United States
recognizes the deaths of between 300,000 (Turkish estimates) and 1.5
million (Armenian estimates) Armenians as genocide, it may cause new
lines to be drawn in the sands of the Middle East, but it would also
be a courageous gesture in an era when moral certitude is lacking
in foreign policy. Here are some considerations to think about in
recognizing this event as genocide.
The main agitator against the bill's passage is of course the modern
state of Turkey which- if it tried- could better disassociate itself
from the triumvirate of bad Pashas during World War I who ordered the
systematic annihilation of Armenians in Turkey. The initial waves of
Armenian slaughter must be understood as the attempts of the Young
Turks in the weak Ottoman government to establish a modern, though
powerful state that would be exclusively Turkish and Muslim. They were
assisted by the Ottoman Pasha's ill-conceived decision to side with
the Germans and Austrians, which pre-destined the country to partition
along ethnic and religious lines if the Axis should ever lose the
war. With that concern foremost in his mind, the Pasha allowed for the
legal expulsion of Christians from the territory of Turkey. Because
of its geographic dispersion throughout Turkey, it was the Armenian
community which would suffer the brunt of this measure, since the
Turkish forces who were fighting against the Russians in 1915 were
severely defeated by an army that was comprised of- understandably-
Armenians. Sensing a Christian conspiracy, the Turkish government
in Istanbul began conducting a purge of those territories where
Armenians resided and allowed for revenge to be taken out against
them. Interestingly enough, the conceptual genocide may have been
ordered by angry Young Turks, but it was physically carried out by
another ethnic minority within Turkey- the Kurds.
This presents an interesting paradigm in current Turkish-Kurdish
relations which can be relegated to "very bad" when one considers Iraqi
Kurdistan today. The Turks of 1915 were not powerful enough to secure
their eastern frontier and relied on the Kurds for the nefarious job
of driving the Armenians out. To be specific, there were two large
groups of Sunni Kurds in the region, and the Ottoman government was
successful in turning them against each other while giving the Ascheti
Kurds a dominant position in return for carrying out the atrocities. As
a result, Kurdish tribes at that time became estranged from one another
because of their poisoned relations with the Turks, and this animosity
continues in Kurdish politics to this day. The irony here is that if
the Kurds can be blamed for the Armenian executions, then the present
Turkish government has a useful propaganda tool at its service.
Turkish tradition dictates that any tarnishing of family honor
be punished severely, and for this reason it is illegal to speak
"against Turkishness" in public forums. The dishonor enters when one
considers that the country's beloved founder- Mustafa Kemal Attaturk-
was one of the army officers who carried out the genocide in both
1915 and 1920. To criticize Attaturk is paramount to disrespecting
one's father, and for this reason Turkey will not accept the label of
genocide for what happened in the eastern regions of the country. The
Turkish-Armenian War was fought in 1920 and won thanks to Attaturk's
leadership, which further exonerates the Turks from guilt, since the
Armenians were the ones who had declared war. As the Turks advanced
on one side into Armenia in 1920, the Bolsheviks advanced on Armenia
from the other, and by the end of the war the tiny republic had been
reduced in size by one-half.
The implications for today's Turkey are considerable, since many
in the international community have already recognized the event as
genocide. Firstly, the United States stands to lose two allies- the
Turks in Ankara and the Kurds in upstart Iraqi Kurdistan. There will
be social backlash against America in Turkey, and it will benefit the
Islamists and their cause for returning to religious traditions if
the US admonishes them for this historic crime. The Kurds, however,
will feel a national victory in that their nation will be able to
claim a moral distance from the Turks, despite their participation
in the crime, and further their efforts for statehood.
Last to consider is Israel; relations between Tel Aviv and Ankara in
the post 9/11 Middle East have been exceptionally good, but there is
the historic equivalent in the Armenian holocaust which many in the
International community are pushing Israel to recognize.
Turkish-Israeli cooperation will suffer if the Americans recognize
Genocide in the Armenian massacre, since Israel is known for standing
behind US policy as long as it doesn't outwardly jeopardize Israeli
security. In the end, no one will benefit from a strong American
stand on this issue.
The irony lies in the fact that while the Congress of the United States
may well pass the bill- as it has done more than once in the past-
the Senate will have a hard time mustering up the votes necessary. In
the end, short-term political gains will be sacrificed for the moral
courage to stand with the international community and call a spade a
spade. In this way, the foreign policy maxim of the Bush administration
will be upheld- "you are either with us, or against us"- and in this
case Turkey and Israel will rest easy with America's moral vacillation
where national security is concerned.
Tracy Dove, editor of The Russia News Service, is a Professor of
History and the Department Chair of International Relations at the
University of New York in Prague.
By Tracy Dove, Ph.D, The Russia News Service
U.S. Politics Today, DC
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=3 49125
Oct 10 2007
A sensitive bill is about to go before the US Congress, and it
won't be the first time that this initiative has been struck down
by careful congressmen- only this time for the wrong reasons. The
word "genocide" is not taken lightly in international arenas, and
this means that governments have to be especially careful of which
atrocities they recognize as genocide and which they give credence
to as horrible human tragedies- but no more. If the United States
recognizes the deaths of between 300,000 (Turkish estimates) and 1.5
million (Armenian estimates) Armenians as genocide, it may cause new
lines to be drawn in the sands of the Middle East, but it would also
be a courageous gesture in an era when moral certitude is lacking
in foreign policy. Here are some considerations to think about in
recognizing this event as genocide.
The main agitator against the bill's passage is of course the modern
state of Turkey which- if it tried- could better disassociate itself
from the triumvirate of bad Pashas during World War I who ordered the
systematic annihilation of Armenians in Turkey. The initial waves of
Armenian slaughter must be understood as the attempts of the Young
Turks in the weak Ottoman government to establish a modern, though
powerful state that would be exclusively Turkish and Muslim. They were
assisted by the Ottoman Pasha's ill-conceived decision to side with
the Germans and Austrians, which pre-destined the country to partition
along ethnic and religious lines if the Axis should ever lose the
war. With that concern foremost in his mind, the Pasha allowed for the
legal expulsion of Christians from the territory of Turkey. Because
of its geographic dispersion throughout Turkey, it was the Armenian
community which would suffer the brunt of this measure, since the
Turkish forces who were fighting against the Russians in 1915 were
severely defeated by an army that was comprised of- understandably-
Armenians. Sensing a Christian conspiracy, the Turkish government
in Istanbul began conducting a purge of those territories where
Armenians resided and allowed for revenge to be taken out against
them. Interestingly enough, the conceptual genocide may have been
ordered by angry Young Turks, but it was physically carried out by
another ethnic minority within Turkey- the Kurds.
This presents an interesting paradigm in current Turkish-Kurdish
relations which can be relegated to "very bad" when one considers Iraqi
Kurdistan today. The Turks of 1915 were not powerful enough to secure
their eastern frontier and relied on the Kurds for the nefarious job
of driving the Armenians out. To be specific, there were two large
groups of Sunni Kurds in the region, and the Ottoman government was
successful in turning them against each other while giving the Ascheti
Kurds a dominant position in return for carrying out the atrocities. As
a result, Kurdish tribes at that time became estranged from one another
because of their poisoned relations with the Turks, and this animosity
continues in Kurdish politics to this day. The irony here is that if
the Kurds can be blamed for the Armenian executions, then the present
Turkish government has a useful propaganda tool at its service.
Turkish tradition dictates that any tarnishing of family honor
be punished severely, and for this reason it is illegal to speak
"against Turkishness" in public forums. The dishonor enters when one
considers that the country's beloved founder- Mustafa Kemal Attaturk-
was one of the army officers who carried out the genocide in both
1915 and 1920. To criticize Attaturk is paramount to disrespecting
one's father, and for this reason Turkey will not accept the label of
genocide for what happened in the eastern regions of the country. The
Turkish-Armenian War was fought in 1920 and won thanks to Attaturk's
leadership, which further exonerates the Turks from guilt, since the
Armenians were the ones who had declared war. As the Turks advanced
on one side into Armenia in 1920, the Bolsheviks advanced on Armenia
from the other, and by the end of the war the tiny republic had been
reduced in size by one-half.
The implications for today's Turkey are considerable, since many
in the international community have already recognized the event as
genocide. Firstly, the United States stands to lose two allies- the
Turks in Ankara and the Kurds in upstart Iraqi Kurdistan. There will
be social backlash against America in Turkey, and it will benefit the
Islamists and their cause for returning to religious traditions if
the US admonishes them for this historic crime. The Kurds, however,
will feel a national victory in that their nation will be able to
claim a moral distance from the Turks, despite their participation
in the crime, and further their efforts for statehood.
Last to consider is Israel; relations between Tel Aviv and Ankara in
the post 9/11 Middle East have been exceptionally good, but there is
the historic equivalent in the Armenian holocaust which many in the
International community are pushing Israel to recognize.
Turkish-Israeli cooperation will suffer if the Americans recognize
Genocide in the Armenian massacre, since Israel is known for standing
behind US policy as long as it doesn't outwardly jeopardize Israeli
security. In the end, no one will benefit from a strong American
stand on this issue.
The irony lies in the fact that while the Congress of the United States
may well pass the bill- as it has done more than once in the past-
the Senate will have a hard time mustering up the votes necessary. In
the end, short-term political gains will be sacrificed for the moral
courage to stand with the international community and call a spade a
spade. In this way, the foreign policy maxim of the Bush administration
will be upheld- "you are either with us, or against us"- and in this
case Turkey and Israel will rest easy with America's moral vacillation
where national security is concerned.
Tracy Dove, editor of The Russia News Service, is a Professor of
History and the Department Chair of International Relations at the
University of New York in Prague.