Tweet
GENOCIDE? WHAT GENOCIDE?
By Mark Krikorian
National Review Online , NY
Oct 16 2007
Critics are right that Congress has no business weighing in on
historical controversies. But there is no controversy here.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee has passed a non-binding resolution
recognizing the Armenian Genocide, and Turkey is in a tizzy. A few
thoughts.
First of all, it is simply inarguable that the Ottoman Empire tried
to eradicate the Armenian people under the cover of World War I.
Despite the Turkish government's efforts to purchase a different
historical narrative (by, for instance, using government funds to
endow chairs in Turkish Studies at American universities), genocide
denial is finding an increasingly small audience. As the International
Association of Genocide Scholars has put it, "to deny its factual
and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but
in propaganda."
But that, of course, doesn't give House members much direction in
considering whether to vote for the actual resolution that will soon
reach the House floor. It wouldn't matter much one way or the other if
Congress were voting on whether to condemn the Mongols' extermination
of 90 percent of Persia's population in the 13th century, for instance,
because that doesn't have much political saliency. But, for whatever
reason, the modern Turkish Republic has adopted a monomaniacal
position of genocide denial, similar to the ChiComs' insistence on
the fiction of "One China," or the Greeks' obsession with FYROM,
or the Arabs' demand that we pretend Jerusalem is not the capital of
Israel. This is despite the fact that the genocide was the policy of a
long-defunct state and its architects were actually condemned to death
in absentia by Turkish military courts specifically for committing
the genocide. The smart thing would be to simply acknowledge the
crimes of the ancien regime, and move on.
Nonetheless, Turkey will brook no argument. Simply asserting the
existence of the Armenian Genocide there is a criminal offense,
and just yesterday two Turkish-Armenian journalists were convicted
on such charges, including the son of another journalist murdered
earlier this year for asserting the reality of the genocide.
As a result of the House committee vote, Turkey has temporarily
recalled its ambassador and Washington fears that if the genocide
measure passes the full House, Turkey will limit our use of an air
base in southern Turkey used to supply troops in Iraq. They may well
make good on their threat, though the Turkish government's pique is
likely to be short-lived, since they need us more than we need them.
And we've coped just fine with earlier efforts at Turkish obstruction
of our efforts in Iraq; in 2003, Turkey refused to allow U.S. troops to
pass through on their way to overthrow Saddam. What's more, Turkey is
moving toward sending its own troops to invade Kurdistan, the only part
of Iraq that isn't at war, in order to flush out separatist guerrillas.
The context for Turkey's reaction to the House resolution is the fact
that Turks are the most anti-American people on Earth. A 47-nation
Pew survey earlier this year showed that ordinary Turks had the
least favorable view of the United States, more negative than even
the Palestinians or Pakistanis. Mein Kampf is a bestseller there,
and the luridly anti-American and anti-Semitic film Valley of the
Wolves - Iraq drew record audiences and thumbs-ups from Turkey's
political leadership. The Turkish people's deep-seated hatred of
America obviously wouldn't get any better because of passage of the
genocide resolution, but it couldn't get any worse.
Back home, it's particularly amusing to see opposition to the genocide
resolution from those who want to use American foreign policy to
promote human rights abroad. If you're going to stick your nose
in other people's business, and tell Burma's junta how to behave,
and pass judgment on every nation's commitment to religious freedom,
etc., this is what you're going to be stuck with. In other words, once
you start moving along the spectrum toward foreign-policy Idealism,
don't be surprised when this sort of thing happens.
If there's any real problem with the genocide resolution it's
precisely that it feeds into an excessively idealist view of foreign
policy. While its many findings are largely restatements of facts
in the public record, its "Declaration of Policy" states that "The
House of Representatives - (1) calls upon the President to ensure
that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate
understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human
rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States
record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the
failure to realize a just resolution." Our foreign policy is already
reflects inordinate "sensitivity concerning issues related to human
rights" - we hardly need more of it.
None of this would have happened if subsequent presidents had simply
followed Ronald Reagan's lead in commemorating the Armenian Genocide
along with the Holocaust, without lots of specific "findings,"
without declarations of policy, without even mentioning Turkey or
the Ottomans. Our policy toward modern Turkey should have nothing
whatsoever to do with acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. But
caving to Turkish pressure never to use "Armenian" and "genocide" in
the same sentence is what has given the current resolution its impetus.
Critics are right that Congress has no business weighing in on
historical controversies. But there is no controversy here. This
isn't even a matter of the polite fictions necessary to international
diplomacy. Denying the Armenian Genocide is simply a lie, and a lie
propagated at the behest of a foreign power. It's unworthy of us.
- Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration
Studies.
http://article.nationalrevie w.com/?q=ODdhNWYwNTI5NzI4ODE0NjFjNTgwNzUwOGYwNDVkM GQ=
By Mark Krikorian
National Review Online , NY
Oct 16 2007
Critics are right that Congress has no business weighing in on
historical controversies. But there is no controversy here.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee has passed a non-binding resolution
recognizing the Armenian Genocide, and Turkey is in a tizzy. A few
thoughts.
First of all, it is simply inarguable that the Ottoman Empire tried
to eradicate the Armenian people under the cover of World War I.
Despite the Turkish government's efforts to purchase a different
historical narrative (by, for instance, using government funds to
endow chairs in Turkish Studies at American universities), genocide
denial is finding an increasingly small audience. As the International
Association of Genocide Scholars has put it, "to deny its factual
and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but
in propaganda."
But that, of course, doesn't give House members much direction in
considering whether to vote for the actual resolution that will soon
reach the House floor. It wouldn't matter much one way or the other if
Congress were voting on whether to condemn the Mongols' extermination
of 90 percent of Persia's population in the 13th century, for instance,
because that doesn't have much political saliency. But, for whatever
reason, the modern Turkish Republic has adopted a monomaniacal
position of genocide denial, similar to the ChiComs' insistence on
the fiction of "One China," or the Greeks' obsession with FYROM,
or the Arabs' demand that we pretend Jerusalem is not the capital of
Israel. This is despite the fact that the genocide was the policy of a
long-defunct state and its architects were actually condemned to death
in absentia by Turkish military courts specifically for committing
the genocide. The smart thing would be to simply acknowledge the
crimes of the ancien regime, and move on.
Nonetheless, Turkey will brook no argument. Simply asserting the
existence of the Armenian Genocide there is a criminal offense,
and just yesterday two Turkish-Armenian journalists were convicted
on such charges, including the son of another journalist murdered
earlier this year for asserting the reality of the genocide.
As a result of the House committee vote, Turkey has temporarily
recalled its ambassador and Washington fears that if the genocide
measure passes the full House, Turkey will limit our use of an air
base in southern Turkey used to supply troops in Iraq. They may well
make good on their threat, though the Turkish government's pique is
likely to be short-lived, since they need us more than we need them.
And we've coped just fine with earlier efforts at Turkish obstruction
of our efforts in Iraq; in 2003, Turkey refused to allow U.S. troops to
pass through on their way to overthrow Saddam. What's more, Turkey is
moving toward sending its own troops to invade Kurdistan, the only part
of Iraq that isn't at war, in order to flush out separatist guerrillas.
The context for Turkey's reaction to the House resolution is the fact
that Turks are the most anti-American people on Earth. A 47-nation
Pew survey earlier this year showed that ordinary Turks had the
least favorable view of the United States, more negative than even
the Palestinians or Pakistanis. Mein Kampf is a bestseller there,
and the luridly anti-American and anti-Semitic film Valley of the
Wolves - Iraq drew record audiences and thumbs-ups from Turkey's
political leadership. The Turkish people's deep-seated hatred of
America obviously wouldn't get any better because of passage of the
genocide resolution, but it couldn't get any worse.
Back home, it's particularly amusing to see opposition to the genocide
resolution from those who want to use American foreign policy to
promote human rights abroad. If you're going to stick your nose
in other people's business, and tell Burma's junta how to behave,
and pass judgment on every nation's commitment to religious freedom,
etc., this is what you're going to be stuck with. In other words, once
you start moving along the spectrum toward foreign-policy Idealism,
don't be surprised when this sort of thing happens.
If there's any real problem with the genocide resolution it's
precisely that it feeds into an excessively idealist view of foreign
policy. While its many findings are largely restatements of facts
in the public record, its "Declaration of Policy" states that "The
House of Representatives - (1) calls upon the President to ensure
that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate
understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human
rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States
record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the
failure to realize a just resolution." Our foreign policy is already
reflects inordinate "sensitivity concerning issues related to human
rights" - we hardly need more of it.
None of this would have happened if subsequent presidents had simply
followed Ronald Reagan's lead in commemorating the Armenian Genocide
along with the Holocaust, without lots of specific "findings,"
without declarations of policy, without even mentioning Turkey or
the Ottomans. Our policy toward modern Turkey should have nothing
whatsoever to do with acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. But
caving to Turkish pressure never to use "Armenian" and "genocide" in
the same sentence is what has given the current resolution its impetus.
Critics are right that Congress has no business weighing in on
historical controversies. But there is no controversy here. This
isn't even a matter of the polite fictions necessary to international
diplomacy. Denying the Armenian Genocide is simply a lie, and a lie
propagated at the behest of a foreign power. It's unworthy of us.
- Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration
Studies.
http://article.nationalrevie w.com/?q=ODdhNWYwNTI5NzI4ODE0NjFjNTgwNzUwOGYwNDVkM GQ=