Tweet
DANGEROUS WATERS: US FOREIGN POLICY SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY SYMBOLS. PASSING A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE FACT OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE WOULD DO JUST THAT.
Alan Wolfe
The Guardian, UK
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/alan_wolfe/ 2007/10/in_the_second_decade_of.html
Oct 15 2007
About Webfeeds October 15, 2007 4:30 PM | Printable version In the
second decade of the 20th century, the Ottoman Turks committed acts
of brutal genocide against one and a half million Armenians.
Every person who believes in human rights, and every organization
committed to protecting them, should have no problem calling such
genocide what it is.
But should the US Congress? The answer to that question should be no.
Congress is neither an individual nor an organization; it is one of
the major branches of the US government responsible for the foreign
policy of the United States. In a democracy such as the United States,
Congress is frequently asked to respond to all kinds of symbolic
issues important to one particular group or another. Should Congress
declare itself in favor of Christmas, as the late representative
from Virginia, Jo Ann Davis, in 2005? Should it endorse the rights
of states to display the Ten Commandments, as Missouri Republican
Todd Akin similarly urged?
A resolution declaring the fact of the Armenian genocide is more
serious than either of these, but it is still a symbolic gesture.
Foreign policy should not be made by symbols. Congress would be just
as wrong to pass a resolution declaring that the Armenian genocide
never happened as it would insisting that it did.
Most symbolic resolutions do no harm. This one could. The Bush
administration claims that the harm in question would be the dangers
to which American troops in Iraq would be exposed if Turkey were, in
protest against the resolution, to withdraw some of the support it has
provided the American effort. Others, including the Anti-Defamation
League, cite the harm to Israel that would follow if Turkey, about as
close an ally in the Muslim world as Israel is ever likely to find,
were to shift its allegiances. It is perfectly plausible to argue
that while morality implies support of the genocide resolution,
matters of state work against it.
But there is also a moral reason why passage of such a resolution
is a bad idea. As horrific as the Armenian genocide was, it pales
in comparison to what would happen if there really did take place a
clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. No
one knows whether such a clash will ever occur.
But there do exist voices in both the United States and Western Europe
proclaiming that Islam - not Islamic terrorists, but Islam itself -
is opposed to every value Westerners hold dear. In the writings of
Norman Podhoretz, an advisor to presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani,
the pride that Muslims have in their faith slips easily into a
denunciation of their extremism, only to conclude with an account
of the dangers they pose. For those willing to proclaim that even a
secular Muslim such as Saddam Hussein was complicit in a terrorist
attack against the United States, every religious Muslim government
must be an even greater threat.
Anyone whose moral understanding leads them to recoil in horror at
the idea of a religious war conducted in an age of nuclear weapons
should want to encourage significant countries in the Muslim world to
experiment with democracy, secularism and dynamic economic growth. No
country has proven itself more willing to do that than Turkey.
It is true that the current Turkish government is more religious
than its predecessors. But it is also true that it is a moderate
government, anxious to continue on a path that would eventually
lead Turkey into a closer relationship with the rest of Europe. (As
it happens, in part because of its desire to become part of Europe,
it is also the best government Turkey has had on the Armenian issue;
Abdullah Gul, Turkey's president, has called, so far unsuccessfully,
for changes in Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which makes
mention of the Armenian genocide a crime against Turkish identity.)
We not only have a strategic interest in having Turkey as an ally. We
have a moral interest in proving doomsday scenarios false.
I find myself totally out of sympathy with Turkey's intransigence on
the Armenian genocide. But we need Turkey, and Turkey needs us.
Americans of all stripes should continue to denounce the Turkish
genocide against the Armenians while instructing their leaders to
take a pass on making such sentiments official.
Alan Wolfe
The Guardian, UK
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/alan_wolfe/ 2007/10/in_the_second_decade_of.html
Oct 15 2007
About Webfeeds October 15, 2007 4:30 PM | Printable version In the
second decade of the 20th century, the Ottoman Turks committed acts
of brutal genocide against one and a half million Armenians.
Every person who believes in human rights, and every organization
committed to protecting them, should have no problem calling such
genocide what it is.
But should the US Congress? The answer to that question should be no.
Congress is neither an individual nor an organization; it is one of
the major branches of the US government responsible for the foreign
policy of the United States. In a democracy such as the United States,
Congress is frequently asked to respond to all kinds of symbolic
issues important to one particular group or another. Should Congress
declare itself in favor of Christmas, as the late representative
from Virginia, Jo Ann Davis, in 2005? Should it endorse the rights
of states to display the Ten Commandments, as Missouri Republican
Todd Akin similarly urged?
A resolution declaring the fact of the Armenian genocide is more
serious than either of these, but it is still a symbolic gesture.
Foreign policy should not be made by symbols. Congress would be just
as wrong to pass a resolution declaring that the Armenian genocide
never happened as it would insisting that it did.
Most symbolic resolutions do no harm. This one could. The Bush
administration claims that the harm in question would be the dangers
to which American troops in Iraq would be exposed if Turkey were, in
protest against the resolution, to withdraw some of the support it has
provided the American effort. Others, including the Anti-Defamation
League, cite the harm to Israel that would follow if Turkey, about as
close an ally in the Muslim world as Israel is ever likely to find,
were to shift its allegiances. It is perfectly plausible to argue
that while morality implies support of the genocide resolution,
matters of state work against it.
But there is also a moral reason why passage of such a resolution
is a bad idea. As horrific as the Armenian genocide was, it pales
in comparison to what would happen if there really did take place a
clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. No
one knows whether such a clash will ever occur.
But there do exist voices in both the United States and Western Europe
proclaiming that Islam - not Islamic terrorists, but Islam itself -
is opposed to every value Westerners hold dear. In the writings of
Norman Podhoretz, an advisor to presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani,
the pride that Muslims have in their faith slips easily into a
denunciation of their extremism, only to conclude with an account
of the dangers they pose. For those willing to proclaim that even a
secular Muslim such as Saddam Hussein was complicit in a terrorist
attack against the United States, every religious Muslim government
must be an even greater threat.
Anyone whose moral understanding leads them to recoil in horror at
the idea of a religious war conducted in an age of nuclear weapons
should want to encourage significant countries in the Muslim world to
experiment with democracy, secularism and dynamic economic growth. No
country has proven itself more willing to do that than Turkey.
It is true that the current Turkish government is more religious
than its predecessors. But it is also true that it is a moderate
government, anxious to continue on a path that would eventually
lead Turkey into a closer relationship with the rest of Europe. (As
it happens, in part because of its desire to become part of Europe,
it is also the best government Turkey has had on the Armenian issue;
Abdullah Gul, Turkey's president, has called, so far unsuccessfully,
for changes in Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which makes
mention of the Armenian genocide a crime against Turkish identity.)
We not only have a strategic interest in having Turkey as an ally. We
have a moral interest in proving doomsday scenarios false.
I find myself totally out of sympathy with Turkey's intransigence on
the Armenian genocide. But we need Turkey, and Turkey needs us.
Americans of all stripes should continue to denounce the Turkish
genocide against the Armenians while instructing their leaders to
take a pass on making such sentiments official.