Tweet
PanARMENIAN.Net
Human rights overwhelmed the Turkish blackmail
The USA made it quite clear to Turkey, that no matter how important
this country is to America for the sake of national interests, no one
can dictate the rules of the game to the American congressmen
11.10.2007 GMT+04:00
The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved
Resolution 106 about the Armenian Genocide with 27 votes for and 21
against. `This decision became a challenge to the White House and
poses serious threats for its relations with Ankara, which called the
Resolution `unacceptable and making no sense for the Turkish nation.'
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Shortly before the discussion of the document in
Congress President George Bush himself made a speech, who expressed
his fears about the `serious consequences in America's relations with
one of the key allies regarding NATO and the war with terrorism.' The
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoghan also warned that passing of such
a bill `will strain the relations of the USA with one of its most
important allies in the region.' The US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice also expressed her concern: `I have no wish to forget what
happened, but the adoption of the Resolution at this time will create
problems for all we have so far tried to do in the Middle East,'
quotes the Italian newspaper La Stampa.
At first sight it was something unbelievable, morality overwhelmed
politics. Moreover, USA made it quite clear to Turkey, that no matter
how important this country is to America for the sake of its national
interests, no one can dictate the rules of the game to the American
congressmen. As for Ankara, it failed to count one thing - President
of the USA doesn't have the right to interfere in Congress'
affairs. He cannot even come to Congress without the agreement of the
congressmen of both Houses. True, President of the USA or someone from
his Administration, including the State Department, may call the
Speaker of the House and bringing serious arguments may convince not
to put the issue to vote. This happened more than once, though. Turkey
obviously didn't take into consideration who it is dealing
with. Lately the Armenian Community in the USA put a stress on the
human rights, which are being violated by means of the Genocide. And
the USA, as a defender of democracy and human values, can't put its
image in danger. Turkey will not resolve to taking any serious
anti-American measures in any case, but will certainly take advantage
of the Resolution to undertake actions in Northern Iraq and secondly
to incite all its allies in the Islamic World against
Armenia. However, they are not large in number. And it will be rather
unreasonable from Turkey to irritate the nationalists calling upon
`teaching a lesson' to the Armenian Community of Istanbul. If it
happens, the whole world then will say that the Turks haven't changed
and that the present Turkey doesn't differ from the Ottoman Empire at
all. But the most interesting thing is that in Turkey no one says that
the adopted document is only `the opinion of the House', which is
optional. Perhaps it is simply useful.
`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,' said the chairman of the United States House
Committee on Foreign Affairs opening the hearings of the Resolution
106 about the Armenian Genocide. He quoted Henry Morgenthau, the US
Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during World War I: `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.'
Lantos reminded that among all the US Presidents Ronald Reagan only
called the events of 1915 `The Armenian Genocide' in his annual
message on April 24. `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. Another
thing is that U.S. troops are currently engaged in wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They depend on a major Turkish airbase Incerlik 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. 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,' said Tom Lantos in conclusion. «PanARMENIAN.Net» analytical
department
Human rights overwhelmed the Turkish blackmail
The USA made it quite clear to Turkey, that no matter how important
this country is to America for the sake of national interests, no one
can dictate the rules of the game to the American congressmen
11.10.2007 GMT+04:00
The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs approved
Resolution 106 about the Armenian Genocide with 27 votes for and 21
against. `This decision became a challenge to the White House and
poses serious threats for its relations with Ankara, which called the
Resolution `unacceptable and making no sense for the Turkish nation.'
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Shortly before the discussion of the document in
Congress President George Bush himself made a speech, who expressed
his fears about the `serious consequences in America's relations with
one of the key allies regarding NATO and the war with terrorism.' The
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoghan also warned that passing of such
a bill `will strain the relations of the USA with one of its most
important allies in the region.' The US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice also expressed her concern: `I have no wish to forget what
happened, but the adoption of the Resolution at this time will create
problems for all we have so far tried to do in the Middle East,'
quotes the Italian newspaper La Stampa.
At first sight it was something unbelievable, morality overwhelmed
politics. Moreover, USA made it quite clear to Turkey, that no matter
how important this country is to America for the sake of its national
interests, no one can dictate the rules of the game to the American
congressmen. As for Ankara, it failed to count one thing - President
of the USA doesn't have the right to interfere in Congress'
affairs. He cannot even come to Congress without the agreement of the
congressmen of both Houses. True, President of the USA or someone from
his Administration, including the State Department, may call the
Speaker of the House and bringing serious arguments may convince not
to put the issue to vote. This happened more than once, though. Turkey
obviously didn't take into consideration who it is dealing
with. Lately the Armenian Community in the USA put a stress on the
human rights, which are being violated by means of the Genocide. And
the USA, as a defender of democracy and human values, can't put its
image in danger. Turkey will not resolve to taking any serious
anti-American measures in any case, but will certainly take advantage
of the Resolution to undertake actions in Northern Iraq and secondly
to incite all its allies in the Islamic World against
Armenia. However, they are not large in number. And it will be rather
unreasonable from Turkey to irritate the nationalists calling upon
`teaching a lesson' to the Armenian Community of Istanbul. If it
happens, the whole world then will say that the Turks haven't changed
and that the present Turkey doesn't differ from the Ottoman Empire at
all. But the most interesting thing is that in Turkey no one says that
the adopted document is only `the opinion of the House', which is
optional. Perhaps it is simply useful.
`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,' said the chairman of the United States House
Committee on Foreign Affairs opening the hearings of the Resolution
106 about the Armenian Genocide. He quoted Henry Morgenthau, the US
Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during World War I: `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.'
Lantos reminded that among all the US Presidents Ronald Reagan only
called the events of 1915 `The Armenian Genocide' in his annual
message on April 24. `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. Another
thing is that U.S. troops are currently engaged in wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They depend on a major Turkish airbase Incerlik 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. 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,' said Tom Lantos in conclusion. «PanARMENIAN.Net» analytical
department