Tweet
The Straits Times (Singapore)
October 13, 2007 Saturday
A counter-productive vote over 'genocide'
TURKEY reacted angrily this Thursday when a committee of the US House
of Representatives voted in Washington to condemn as 'genocide' the
mass killings of ethnic Armenians in Turkey.
The Turkish government recalled its ambassador from Washington; it
also threatened to withdraw the logistical and political support for
the US-led operations in neighbouring Iraq.
Seldom before has the mix of politics and history been so
counter-productive.
The event in question took place during World War I, in 1915.
Thousands of ethnic Armenians perished as Turkish troops fought to
keep together their empire.
Yet the dispute is not over that tragedy, but whether this amounted
to genocide, the systematic murder of people on the basis of their
race.
Europe's bloody history is full of such episodes, but the Armenian
question has become part of a much bigger strategic tussle.
The Armenians, who only regained their independence after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, have transformed this matter into a
struggle for their own identity. And they have used the Armenian
diaspora in pursuit of this agenda.
France has recently passed a law recognising the Armenian 'genocide';
the US Congress is now promising to do the same.
Never mind that the French state denied until 1995 any responsibility
for its involvement in the mass murder of the Jews, or that the US
Congress continues to reject the involvement of any international
court in judging America's deeds; kicking the Turks is, apparently,
cost-free.
The reason is purely electoral. Armenians are largely concentrated in
important electoral states such as California, Michigan and
Massachusetts.
The US resolution could not have come at a worse moment. The Turkish
state is convulsed by a deeper dispute between Islamists and
secularists.
The Islamists, who have always claimed that Turkey has gained nothing
for its quest to copy the institutions of a Western state, now claim
to have been vindicated: The West still rejects Turkey.
Last week, 13 Turkish soldiers were killed by Kurdish fighters who
crossed the border from neighbouring Iraq. The Turkish military has
frequently warned that if the US cannot keep order in Iraq, the Turks
will do it themselves; the humiliation dished out by the US Congress
will only encourage such cross-border clashes.
Not everything is lost. The current resolution is non-binding. The US
administration has opposed it, and President George W. Bush has vowed
to see it consigned to the dustbin.
But the Democrats have promised to bring it to the full floor of the
US Congress by the end of next month.
Reason may yet prevail. Yet if it does not, the biggest casualty from
this affair would be the US itself: its reputation in Turkey will be
torn to shreds.
However, when it comes to seeking re-election, US congressmen do not
seem to care about endangering the lives of current US soldiers.
Perhaps the time has come for other parliaments to start debating the
'genocide' of ethnic Indians in North America during the 19th
century? Or ask some questions about what happened to the original
residents of California?
October 13, 2007 Saturday
A counter-productive vote over 'genocide'
TURKEY reacted angrily this Thursday when a committee of the US House
of Representatives voted in Washington to condemn as 'genocide' the
mass killings of ethnic Armenians in Turkey.
The Turkish government recalled its ambassador from Washington; it
also threatened to withdraw the logistical and political support for
the US-led operations in neighbouring Iraq.
Seldom before has the mix of politics and history been so
counter-productive.
The event in question took place during World War I, in 1915.
Thousands of ethnic Armenians perished as Turkish troops fought to
keep together their empire.
Yet the dispute is not over that tragedy, but whether this amounted
to genocide, the systematic murder of people on the basis of their
race.
Europe's bloody history is full of such episodes, but the Armenian
question has become part of a much bigger strategic tussle.
The Armenians, who only regained their independence after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, have transformed this matter into a
struggle for their own identity. And they have used the Armenian
diaspora in pursuit of this agenda.
France has recently passed a law recognising the Armenian 'genocide';
the US Congress is now promising to do the same.
Never mind that the French state denied until 1995 any responsibility
for its involvement in the mass murder of the Jews, or that the US
Congress continues to reject the involvement of any international
court in judging America's deeds; kicking the Turks is, apparently,
cost-free.
The reason is purely electoral. Armenians are largely concentrated in
important electoral states such as California, Michigan and
Massachusetts.
The US resolution could not have come at a worse moment. The Turkish
state is convulsed by a deeper dispute between Islamists and
secularists.
The Islamists, who have always claimed that Turkey has gained nothing
for its quest to copy the institutions of a Western state, now claim
to have been vindicated: The West still rejects Turkey.
Last week, 13 Turkish soldiers were killed by Kurdish fighters who
crossed the border from neighbouring Iraq. The Turkish military has
frequently warned that if the US cannot keep order in Iraq, the Turks
will do it themselves; the humiliation dished out by the US Congress
will only encourage such cross-border clashes.
Not everything is lost. The current resolution is non-binding. The US
administration has opposed it, and President George W. Bush has vowed
to see it consigned to the dustbin.
But the Democrats have promised to bring it to the full floor of the
US Congress by the end of next month.
Reason may yet prevail. Yet if it does not, the biggest casualty from
this affair would be the US itself: its reputation in Turkey will be
torn to shreds.
However, when it comes to seeking re-election, US congressmen do not
seem to care about endangering the lives of current US soldiers.
Perhaps the time has come for other parliaments to start debating the
'genocide' of ethnic Indians in North America during the 19th
century? Or ask some questions about what happened to the original
residents of California?