Tweet
Congressional Record: October 15, 2007 (House)
The Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr15oc07-120]
HOUSE RESOLUTION 106, THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that recognition, and I
appreciate the Republican leader giving me this opportunity tonight to
participate in our Special Order.
I am here tonight to talk about something that happened last week in
the Foreign Relations Committee and to talk about something that is
proposed to happen here in the House between now and the middle of
November when we are supposed to be taking a break for Thanksgiving. I
am here to talk about House Resolution 106, the Armenian genocide
resolution. I am, as I have said before here many times, an extremely
proud Member of the House of Representatives. I am so pleased to be
able to represent the people of the Fifth District of North Carolina.
However, when I came here, I took an oath, an oath to defend the
Constitution and uphold the Constitution. I did not take an oath to say
that I would ignore the good of the United States for the good of the
Fifth District of North Carolina.
I thought that everyone who came here understood that our Number 1
responsibility is to work together as a group on behalf of the entire
United States of America. Certainly we should do all we can to
represent our districts, and I believe that every Member does that. But
there are times when we must put aside provincial interest for the good
of this country.
I am very disappointed that last week the Foreign Relations Committee
voted out of that committee a resolution that I think puts the good of
the United States in second place to the good of a small interest
group. We should never do that as Members of Congress. We should assume
that the oath that we take is like the doctor's oath, above all, do no
harm. The resolution that was passed out of that committee last week
does harm to the United States of America and does harm to people in
Turkey and in other parts of the world. That is not what we should be
about. The action that was taken last week and the proposed action for
a vote on the floor by the entire House has been called by many others
the most irresponsible act of this Congress. I agree with that.
I am particularly concerned that the Speaker of the House is the
person pushing this resolution. She is third in line to be President of
the United States. And exhibiting behavior that shows such provincial
interest does not give me great comfort in thinking that if something
were to happen and the Speaker were to assume the Presidency, that she
would have the presence of mind to do what needs to be done for the
good of this country. It is simply not being exhibited by her
behaviors, by pressing this resolution and by other things that she has
done. I am quite concerned about it.
Many people have written this Speaker, many editorials have been
written saying, don't do this. This will do harm to the United States.
This will do harm to Armenians. This is not the right thing to do.
I want to talk a little bit about the history of Turkey, our
relationship with Turkey, and give a little bit of background to people
who may not be so familiar with Turkey as a country and with what has
happened there and talk about why, again, this resolution is so wrong
not just at this time, but at any time in the history of this country.
The Republic of Turkey was formally established on October 29, 1923,
with the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He was the visionary
leader of modern Turkey and became its first president. You see, Turkey
wasn't even a country in 1915 at the time that the events that are
being discussed in House Resolution 106 are talked about. The fall of
the Ottoman Empire was occurring during that period of time. And so
bringing these charges against Turkey is wrong because Turkey didn't
exist as a country.
Turkey is the only secular pluralistic westward-looking democracy
with a predominantly Muslim population. I have been to Turkey. I have
been to Turkey several times. I have gotten to know the Turkish people
and know them for the wonderfully warm, kind, intelligent and
entrepreneurial people that they are. We are so fortunate to have them
as our ally. Turkey has a significant and constructive physical and
influential reach in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and
Central Asia. The United States and Turkey share common values of
democracy, diversity, tolerance, social mobility, the separation of
religious and civic life.
Anatolia, the home of the Republic of Turkey, has been the cradle of
civilizations for millennia. The city-states of the Lycian Federation
located in Patara, Turkey, inspired the Founding Fathers of the United
States as they wrote the Constitution of the United States. Indeed,
there is a figure of Suleyman here in the House Chamber. We recognize
Suleyman as one of the great lawgivers of the world.
Again, the United States and Turkey have been close friends and
allies for more than half a century. Turkish Americans are leaders in
many walks of life, ranging from the arts, science, academia and
business, and have a proud heritage. Turkish Americans are good-will
ambassadors of the friendship between the United States and Turkey. In
celebrating their rich cultural heritage, Turkish Americans enrich
society in the United States and the United States' understanding of
that part of the world.
Mr. Speaker, Turkey is becoming a reliable energy hub for the Western
world, in a highly volatile region, completing the East-West Energy
Corridor. For decades, Turkey has stood as the bulwark of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, on the southeastern flank of the
alliance, and guarded a long common border with the Soviet Union.
Turkey has become an important partner of the United States in facing
new, major challenges, such as international terrorism, ethnic and
religious extremism and fundamentalism, energy and security and
diversity, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
international organized crime, including drug and human trafficking.
This has been especially true since the Cold War ended.
In July, 2006, the United States and Turkey signed a ``shared vision
document'' outlining a strategic vision for bilateral cooperation and
coordination on a wide range of international matters of common
concern. In 2006, and so far in 2007, Turkey has been the 30th largest
market for United States exports and the 44th largest source of
imports.
Mr. Speaker, Turkey continues to play an important role in
Afghanistan, having twice commanded the International Security
Assistance Force, and maintains a provincial reconstruction team in
Afghanistan which builds hospitals, schools and roads. It plays a
crucial role in helping supply services and equipment to United States
forces in Iraq.
Turkey, again, has had an extraordinarily proud history and has been
a very close collaborator with the United States in doing good things
all over the world, but especially in its part of the world. We as
Americans need to recognize the important role that Turkey has played,
again, from the early millennium, and the importance that it plays in
keeping peace in that part of the world.
I had the opportunity to go to Turkey in May of this year, along with
five other Members of Congress. There were three Democrats and three
Republicans. We visited the Armenian Patriarch and we visited the
Jewish community while we were there. We visited all the major players
in the Turkish government while we were there.
Turkey this year has gone through some challenges to its
constitution. It has worked out those challenges. It has held
elections. It has gone through some crises and handled them extremely
well. We are very proud of the way that all of those things have been
handled.
When we talked with people in Turkey, we heard over and over and over
again how devastating this resolution would be to our relationship with
the Turkish people. We heard from the Armenians in Turkey that this was
a mistake. They told us over and over again that this is something
people in the United States are pushing, that Armenians in the United
States are pushing. They said ``We do not want this done.
We are working out our differences here in Turkey, and working them out
very well. Please do not pass this resolution.''
My three Democratic colleagues who went on that trip are all opposed
to this resolution. The Republicans are opposed to it. This is a
mistake. The Speaker should not be pandering to people in her own
district and risking the friendship that we have with Turkey, and
indeed risking our military endeavors in the Middle East. But that is
what she's doing.
Again, I want to say that many people have called this the most
irresponsible act of this Congress. I think that that is appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, let me share with you some other people who have
expressed their interest and concern and opposition to this resolution.
Eight former Secretaries of State, Democrats and Republicans, sent a
letter to Speaker Pelosi. I want to quote from that letter, dated
September 25, 2007:
``We are writing to express concern that H. Res. 106 could soon be
put to a vote. Passage of the resolution would harm our foreign policy
objectives to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It
would also strain our relations with Turkey and would endanger our
national security interests in the region, including the safety of our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
``We do not minimize or deny the enormous significance of the
horrible tragedy suffered by ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923. During
our tenures as Secretaries of State, we each supported Presidential
Statements recognizing the mass killings and forced exile of Armenians.
It has been longstanding U.S. policy to encourage reconciliation
between Turkey and Armenia and to urge the government of Turkey to
acknowledge the tragedy. We understand the administration continues to
urge the Turkish government to re-examine its history and to encourage
both Turkey and Armenia to work towards reconciliation, including
normalizing relations and opening the border.
``There are some hopeful signs already that both parties are engaging
each other. We believe that a public statement by the U.S. Congress at
this juncture is likely to undermine what has been painstakingly
achieved to date.''
They go on to say: ``We must also recognize the important
contributions Turkey is making to U.S. national security, including
security and stability in the Middle East and Europe. The United States
continues to rely on Turkey for its geostrategic importance. Turkey is
an indispensable partner to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan,
helping U.S. troops to combat terrorism and build security. By
providing the U.S. military with access to Turkish airspace, military
bases and the border crossing with Iraq, Turkey is a linchpin in the
trans-shipment of vital cargo and fuel resources to U.S. troops,
coalition partners and Iraqi civilians.
``Turkish troops serve shoulder to shoulder with distinction with
U.S. and other NATO allies in the Balkans. Turkey is also a transit hub
for non-OPEC oil and gas, and remains key to our efforts to help the
Euro-Atlantic community bolster its energy security by providing
alternative supply sources and routes around Russia and Iran.
``It is our view that passage of this resolution could quickly extend
beyond symbolic significance. The popularly-elected Turkish Grand
National Assembly might react strongly to a House resolution, as it did
to a French National Assembly resolution a year ago. The result could
endanger our national security interests in the region, including our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote
reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We strongly urge you to
prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.''
It is signed by eight former Secretaries of State, and I will submit
this for the record with their signatures.
There is another letter sent to the Speaker of the House by three
former Secretaries of Defense dated September 7, 2007.
``We write today to convey our deep concern regarding the damage that
passage of H. Res. 106 could do to relations between the United States
and Turkey, a long-time NATO ally and a country which plays a critical
role in supporting the U.S. national security interests in the Balkans,
greater Middle East, the Black Sea region and Afghanistan.
``The depth and breadth of our defense and security relationship with
Turkey are considerable, and, as former Secretaries of Defense, we
value Turkey's friendship and partnership. Turkey makes numerous and
substantial contributions to U.S. goals and interests abroad, including
its close relationship with Israel, its deployment of military forces
to the Balkans and its contribution to the NATO effort to defeat
terrorism and support democracy in Afghanistan.
``Just as public opinion plays a crucial role in our own country, the
reaction of the Turkish public to the passage of H. Res. 106 would be
considerable. Passage of H. Res. 106 would have a direct detrimental
effect on the operational capability, safety and well-being of our
armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, because the Turkish parliament
would likely respond to the Turkish public's call for action by
restricting or cutting off U.S. access to the Turkish air base at
Incirlik and closing the crossing into Iraq at the Habur Gate. The
Turkish parliament would also likely retract blanket flight clearances
for U.S. military overflights, which are vital to transporting supplies
and fuel to our troops.
``We also believe the increasingly open debate about this issue in
Turkey would surely be restricted by negative public reaction to U.S.
congressional action. We are also concerned that any potential steps
toward better relations between Turkey and Armenia will be set back by
any action in the U.S. Congress.
``In stating our opposition to H. Res. 106, we do not suggest that
anything other than the most terrible of tragedies took place as the
Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the early part of the last century. As
President Bush and other presidents before him have done, we recognize
the need to acknowledge and learn from the tragedy.
``We respect that this issue is of great concern to you, and hope
that you can consider other appropriate ways to highlight, commemorate
and honor the memory of the victims, without doing damage to our
contemporary relations with modern Turkey.''
Again, I will submit this letter for the Record.
Editorials have come out in most of the major newspapers, newspapers
that are not generally opposed to the Speaker. The Washington Post
editorial was titled ``Worse Than Irrelevant.''
``A congressional resolution about massacres in Turkey 90 years ago
endangers present day U.S. security. It is easy to dismiss a nonbinding
congressional resolution accusing Turkey of ``genocide'' against
Armenians during World War I as frivolous,'' and ``genocide'' is in
quotations. ``Though the subject is a serious one, more than 1 million
Armenians died, House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the
subject have petty and parochial interests.
``The problem is that any congressional action will be taken in
deadly earnest by Turkey's powerful nationalist politicians, and
therefore its government, which is already struggling to resist a tidal
wave of anti-Americanism in the country.''
I am going to submit this entire editorial also, because it refers
again to some of the letters that I have already read. But the
Washington Post has said this is worse than irrelevant, because it will
do harm. Again, what we should practice here is the same thing that
doctors practice: Above all else, do no harm.
There is an excerpt from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal,
October 2, 2007. ``History is messy enough without politicians getting
into the act. As a general rule, legislatures in far-off countries
ought to think carefully before passing judgment on another people's
history. When their sights turn in that direction, it is a fair bet
that points are to be scored with powerful domestic lobbies. Playing
with history often complicates the implementation of foreign policy
goals as well. Politicians are paid to think about the future, not the
past. Many would say, why are we doing this? Why should the Congress
not be dealing with the future, instead of the past?''
I question that too, and I am going to come back to that in a minute
in terms of what may be one of the real underlying reasons for all of these things coming out.
Some have said that Congress rarely holds the key to America's
foreign relations with a critical ally. But now with Turkey, the only
Muslim country in the world allied with the United States and NATO, the
future of Turkish-American relations are very much in the hands of the
Congress.
This is from a survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow, an
organization that did a survey in Turkey earlier this year. It was the
first nationwide public survey of Turkey on the issue and what the
survey found was that it would actually set back the cause it purports
to achieve, namely Turkey's recognition of its own past and
reconciliation with Armenia today.
I have a chart on this showing 78 percent of the Turkish people who
were surveyed opposed this resolution, any congressional resolution
dealing with the Armenian situation. Almost three-quarters of them felt
that passage of an Armenian regulation resolution would worsen their
opinion of the United States. Only 7 percent favored no action by the
government or favored such a resolution. And three-quarters of Turks,
though, would accept scholarship by independent historians on what
occurred between Turks and Armenians during 1915.
Also, Turks do not consider the U.S. Congress a neutral judge of this
issue. Instead, they see the resolution as driven by anti-Muslim
feelings and American domestic politics. And 73 percent of Turks think
a resolution will have the opposite effect and actually worsen
relations between Turkey and Armenia. Again, this was a poll done in
January and February of this year by Terror Free Tomorrow and the ARI
Foundation. These are groups that wanted to study this issue to gather
information to help people be informed of what the effect would be. The
survey was done all over the country of Turkey, and the views that were
held were held firmly regardless of age, income, education, or even
their present view of the United States.
And 84 percent of those who now have a very favorable opinion of the
United States responded that their opinion would deteriorate if the
resolution were to pass. And of course the resolution has passed in the
committee and the Speaker has said that she will bring it to the floor
for a vote which most people in Turkey believe would be a terrible,
terrible mistake.
Turkey again is a stable, moderate Muslim democracy. It is our most
strategic and valuable Muslim ally. This resolution would help the
cause of those extremists in Turkey who wish to reduce the nation's
ties with the United States. It would discredit those within Turkey who
continue to call for greater openness and plurality.
The Turkish people who answered the survey felt that it would
alienate the Armenians and the Turks who through fits and starts have
been slowly moving toward reconciliation of this important and divisive
historical question. It could scuttle dialogue to establish a joint
commission to examine the events of 1915.
Turkey is a country of considerable nationalism. The passage of this
resolution would likely produce a nationalistic backlash against the
United States. The whole issue of probing and making amends for the
wrongs of history would be completely lost in this onslaught of Turkish
nationalism. It would probably dramatically and perhaps permanently
damage U.S. relations with Turkey.
As the Turkish community of Turkey recently said in a statement:
``What happened to the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire during World War
I--death, destruction, displacement--was a terrible tragedy, but
eminent historians do not agree whether the term `genocide' is the
appropriate description of that tragedy.'' I certainly agree with that.
In another article by the Washington Post it said: ``It is true that
Turkey's military and political class has been slow to come to terms
with the history and virulent nationalism, but Turkish writers and
intellectuals are pushing for a change in attitude and formal and
informal talks between Turks and Armenians are making slow progress. A
resolution by Congress would probably torpedo rather than help such
efforts. Given that reality and the high risk to vital U.S. security
interests, the Armenian resolution cannot be called frivolous. In fact,
its passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.''
Now I want to go to a piece that has been written that I certainly
hope is not true. Jed Babbin, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense in
President George H.W. Bush's administration, has written in Human
Events magazine: ``According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates,
Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, is the transshipment point for
about 70 percent of all air cargo, including 33 percent of the fuel
going to supply U.S. forces in Iraq. Included are about 95 percent of
the new MRAP, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, designed to
save the lives of American troops.
``Turkey's Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of
Representatives takes action on a nonbinding resolution being pushed by
Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a
waypoint for Iraq supplies.''
And Mr. Boehner has said if the Turks cut off our ability to use
Incirlik, there is no question this could jeopardize our troops on the
ground in Iraq. And, frankly, if this is just the latest in the
Democrat string of back-door attempts to force a retreat against the
war against al Qaeda, it is certainly the most dangerous.''
Mr. Babbin comes to a chilling conclusion in his analysis of the
resolution and its impact on our Nation's relations with the nation of
Turkey. This is what gives me great pause. He writes: ``Speaker Pelosi
is apparently so intent on forcing an end to American involvement in
Iraq that she is willing to interfere in our tenuous friendship with
Turkey. When she does, it will be an historic event. The House of
Representatives will be responsible for alienating a key ally in time
of war and possibly interdicting supplies to U.S. troops.'' If his
prediction proves true, it will be a low point for the history of this
noble body.
I hope that what Mr. Babbin is saying is not true. I hope that this
is not an attempt by the Speaker to sabotage our efforts in Iraq and in
Afghanistan because it puts our troops in harm's way and we have been
hearing over and over again that this is not what she wants or that
others in the majority want. But it would have the effect of doing
that. We as Members of Congress should never take a position that would
in any way put our troops in harm's way.
I am urging the Speaker to rethink her statements that she will put
this resolution, H. Res. 106, on the floor for a vote. It is a
nonbinding resolution. It will go nowhere else. People outside here
don't understand how these resolutions work, but it would not go to the
Senate to be passed. It would not go to the President to be vetoed as I
feel certain the President would veto if it went there. It is a
resolution only from the House of Representatives. This is a body that
is capable of doing so much good, but we also have the capability of
doing harm. We should practice again what physicians take an oath to
do: Above all, do no harm.
I urge the Speaker: rethink your commitment to put H. Res. 106 on the
floor for a vote. Realize the significant responsibility that has been
given to you not just as a Member of the House of Representatives but
as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, an extraordinarily
great honor, the first woman in this country to be named Speaker of the
House.
What message are we sending to our troops if we pass such a
resolution or even consider such a resolution that puts our troops in
harm's way, damages our relationship with a country that has been such
a wonderful ally to us and does damage to our relationship for a long,
long time to a government that has been working very hard to do the
right things, to promote democracy in the Middle East, to shore up
other countries that are working to promote democracy. What messages
are those going to send to other people.
I urge the Speaker to rethink her commitment to put this resolution
on the floor. I urge the Speaker to get above petty and parochial
interests, to think about the tremendous responsibility she bears as
the Speaker of the House.
We are not often involved in foreign relations on the scale that we
are being asked to be involved in the House at this time. It is an awesome
responsibility. We all should remember that we have taken an oath to
defend the Constitution and to defend this country. Bringing such a
resolution to the floor will do damage to our country, to our
relationship with a valued ally, and I believe ultimately will do harm
to our efforts to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.
I urge the Speaker to rise above again petty parochialism, come to
the realization that this is an extremely serious matter that needs to
be dealt with in a very different way than it has been dealt with thus
far, and reject petty parochialism in favor of looking to the larger
issue, looking to the future, not to the past, and helping the
Armenians and the Turks come to grips with this difference of opinion
that they have, resolve it within their own country, keep the United
States looking for those things that are important to the United
States, not getting involved with the internal affairs of other
countries and promoting peace and stability in the Middle East.
Let us let the 110th Congress not be thought of as passing the most
irresponsible resolution that could be passed in this session of
Congress. Let us focus on positive things, things that will move this
country forward and not things that will do harm to this country, to
other countries and, most of all, not to our troops serving overseas,
protecting us so we can be here to practice the free speech that they
make possible for us.
I will insert the material I previously referred to in the Record at
this point.
TCA Issue Paper 25
October 1, 2007, Former Secretaries of State and Defense Object to H.
Res. 106
The following letters have been sent to the Honorable Nancy
Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, by former
U.S. Secretaries of State and former U.S. Secretaries of
Defense voicing their objection to House Resolution 106,
which asks for U.S. recognition of Armenian allegations of
genocide.
Letter by Secretaries of State to Speaker Pelosi
September 25, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: We are writing to express concern that
H. Res. 106 could soon be put to a vote. Passage of the
resolution would harm our foreign policy objectives to
promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It would
also strain our relations with Turkey, and would endanger our
national security interests in the region, including the
safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We do not minimize or deny the enormous significance of the
horrible tragedy suffered by ethnic Armenians from 1915 to
1923. During our tenures as Secretaries of State, we each
supported Presidential statements recognizing the mass
killings and forced exile of Armenians. It has been
longstanding U.S. policy to encourage reconciliation between
Turkey and Armenia and to urge the government of Turkey to
acknowledge the tragedy. We understand the Administration
continues to urge the Turkish government to reexamine its
history and to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to work
towards reconciliation, including normalizing relations and
opening the border. There are some hopeful signs already that
both parties are engaging each other. We believe that a
public statement by the U.S. Congress at this juncture is
likely to undermine what has been painstakingly achieved to
date.
We must also recognize the important contributions Turkey
is making to U.S. national security, including security and
stability in the Middle East and Europe. The United States
continues to rely on Turkey for its geo-strategic importance.
Turkey is an indispensable partner to our efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, helping U.S. troops to combat terrorism and
build security. By providing the U.S. military with access to
Turkish airspace, military bases, and the border crossing
with Iraq, Turkey is a linchpin in the transshipment of vital
cargo and fuel resources to U.S. troops, coalition partners,
and Iraqi civilians. Turkish troops serve shoulder-to-
shoulder with distinction with U.S. and other NATO allies
in the Balkans. Turkey is also a transit hub for non-OPEC
oil and gas and remains key to our efforts to help the
Euro-Atlantic community bolster its energy security by
providing alternative supply sources and routes around
Russia and Iran.
It is our view that passage of this resolution could
quickly extend beyond symbolic significance. The popularly
elected Turkish Grand National Assembly might react strongly
to a House resolution, as it did to a French National
Assembly resolution a year ago. The result could endanger our
national security interests in the region, including our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote
reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We strongly urge
you to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.
Sincerely,
Alexander M. Haig, Jr., George P. Shultz, Lawrence S.
Eagleburger, Madeleine K. Albright, Henry A. Kissinger,
James A. Baker III, Warren Christopher, Colin L.
Powell.
____
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2007]
Worse Than Irrelevant: A congressional Resolution About Massacres in
Turkey 90 Years Ago Endangers Present-Day U.S. Security.
It's easy to dismiss a nonbinding congressional resolution
accusing Turkey of ``genocide'' against Armenians during
World War I as frivolous. Though the subject is a serious
one--more than 1 million Armenians may have died at the hands
of the Young Turk regime between 1915 and the early 1920s--
House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the subject have
petty and parochial interests. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-
Calif.), the chief sponsor, says he has more than 70,000
ethnic Armenians in his Los Angeles district. Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has promised to bring the measure to a
vote on the House floor, has important Armenian American
campaign contributors. How many House members can be expected
to carefully weigh Mr. Schiff's one-sided ``findings'' about
long-ago events in Anatolia?
The problem is that any congressional action will be taken
in deadly earnest by Turkey's powerful nationalist
politicians and therefore by its government, which is already
struggling to resist a tidal wave of anti-Americanism in the
country. Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
called President Bush on Friday to warn against the
resolution. Turkish politicians are predicting that responses
to passage by the House could include denial of U.S. access
to Turkey's Incirlik air base, a key staging point for
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Turkish
parliament could also throw off longstanding U.S. constraints
and mandate an invasion of northern Iraq to attack Kurdish
separatists there, something that could destabilize the only
region of Iraq that is currently peaceful.
No wonder eight former secretaries of state, including
Henry A. Kissinger, James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz and
Madeleine K. Albright, have urged Ms. Pelosi to drop the
resolution, saying it ``could endanger our national security
interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation
between Armenia and Turkey.'' Yet the measure is proceeding:
It is due to be voted on today by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Supporters say congressional action is justified by the
refusal of the Turkish government to accept the truth of the
crimes against Armenians, and its criminalization of
statements describing those events as genocide. It's true
that Turkey's military and political class has been
inexcusably slow to come to terms with that history, and
virulent nationalism--not Islamism--may be the country's most
dangerous political force. But Turkish writers and
intellectuals are pushing for a change in attitude, and
formal and informal talks between Turks and Armenians are
making slow progress. A resolution by Congress would probably
torpedo rather than help such efforts. Given that reality,
and the high risk to vital U.S. security interests, the
Armenian genocide resolution cannot be called frivolous. In
fact, its passage would be dangerous and grossly
irresponsible.
Letter by Secretaries of Defense to Speaker Pelosi
September 7, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: We write today to convey our deep
concern regarding the damage that passage of H. Res. 106
could do to relations between the United States and Turkey, a
long-time NATO ally and a country which plays a critical role
in supporting U.S. national security interests in the
Balkans, greater Middle East, the Black Sea region and
Afghanistan. The depth and breadth of our defense and
security relationship with Turkey are considerable, and, as
former Secretaries of Defense, we value Turkey's friendship
and partnership.
Turkey makes numerous and substantial contributions to U.S.
goals and interests abroad, including its close relationship
with Israel, its deployment of military forces to the Balkans
and its contribution to the NATO effort to defeat terrorism
and support democracy in Afghanistan.
Just as public opinion plays a crucial role in our own
country, the reaction of the Turkish public to the passage of
H. Res. 106 would be considerable. Passage of H. Res. 106
would have a direct, detrimental effect on the operational
capabilities, safety and well being of our armed forces in
Iraq and in Afghanistan because the Turkish parliament would
likely respond to the Turkish public's call for action by
restricting or cutting off U.S. access to the Turkish air
base at Incirlik and closing the crossing into Iraq at the
Habur Gate. The Turkish parliament would also likely retract
blanket flight clearances for U.S. military overflights,
which are vital to transporting supplies and fuel to our
troops. We also believe the increasingly open debate about
this issue In
[[Page H11546]]
Turkey would surely be restricted by a negative public
reaction to U.S. Congressional action. We are also concerned
that any potential steps toward better relations between
Turkey and Armenia will be set back by any action in the U.S.
Congress.
In stating our opposition to H. Res. 106, we do not suggest
that anything other than the most terrible of tragedies took
place as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the early part
of the last century. As President Bush and other Presidents
before him have done, we recognize the need to acknowledge
and learn from the tragedy. We respect that this issue is of
great concern to you, and hope that you can consider other
appropriate ways to highlight, commemorate and honor the
memory of the victims without doing damage to our
contemporary relations with modern Turkey.
Sincerely,
Frank Carlucci.
William Cohen.
William Perry.
____________________
The Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr15oc07-120]
HOUSE RESOLUTION 106, THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much that recognition, and I
appreciate the Republican leader giving me this opportunity tonight to
participate in our Special Order.
I am here tonight to talk about something that happened last week in
the Foreign Relations Committee and to talk about something that is
proposed to happen here in the House between now and the middle of
November when we are supposed to be taking a break for Thanksgiving. I
am here to talk about House Resolution 106, the Armenian genocide
resolution. I am, as I have said before here many times, an extremely
proud Member of the House of Representatives. I am so pleased to be
able to represent the people of the Fifth District of North Carolina.
However, when I came here, I took an oath, an oath to defend the
Constitution and uphold the Constitution. I did not take an oath to say
that I would ignore the good of the United States for the good of the
Fifth District of North Carolina.
I thought that everyone who came here understood that our Number 1
responsibility is to work together as a group on behalf of the entire
United States of America. Certainly we should do all we can to
represent our districts, and I believe that every Member does that. But
there are times when we must put aside provincial interest for the good
of this country.
I am very disappointed that last week the Foreign Relations Committee
voted out of that committee a resolution that I think puts the good of
the United States in second place to the good of a small interest
group. We should never do that as Members of Congress. We should assume
that the oath that we take is like the doctor's oath, above all, do no
harm. The resolution that was passed out of that committee last week
does harm to the United States of America and does harm to people in
Turkey and in other parts of the world. That is not what we should be
about. The action that was taken last week and the proposed action for
a vote on the floor by the entire House has been called by many others
the most irresponsible act of this Congress. I agree with that.
I am particularly concerned that the Speaker of the House is the
person pushing this resolution. She is third in line to be President of
the United States. And exhibiting behavior that shows such provincial
interest does not give me great comfort in thinking that if something
were to happen and the Speaker were to assume the Presidency, that she
would have the presence of mind to do what needs to be done for the
good of this country. It is simply not being exhibited by her
behaviors, by pressing this resolution and by other things that she has
done. I am quite concerned about it.
Many people have written this Speaker, many editorials have been
written saying, don't do this. This will do harm to the United States.
This will do harm to Armenians. This is not the right thing to do.
I want to talk a little bit about the history of Turkey, our
relationship with Turkey, and give a little bit of background to people
who may not be so familiar with Turkey as a country and with what has
happened there and talk about why, again, this resolution is so wrong
not just at this time, but at any time in the history of this country.
The Republic of Turkey was formally established on October 29, 1923,
with the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He was the visionary
leader of modern Turkey and became its first president. You see, Turkey
wasn't even a country in 1915 at the time that the events that are
being discussed in House Resolution 106 are talked about. The fall of
the Ottoman Empire was occurring during that period of time. And so
bringing these charges against Turkey is wrong because Turkey didn't
exist as a country.
Turkey is the only secular pluralistic westward-looking democracy
with a predominantly Muslim population. I have been to Turkey. I have
been to Turkey several times. I have gotten to know the Turkish people
and know them for the wonderfully warm, kind, intelligent and
entrepreneurial people that they are. We are so fortunate to have them
as our ally. Turkey has a significant and constructive physical and
influential reach in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and
Central Asia. The United States and Turkey share common values of
democracy, diversity, tolerance, social mobility, the separation of
religious and civic life.
Anatolia, the home of the Republic of Turkey, has been the cradle of
civilizations for millennia. The city-states of the Lycian Federation
located in Patara, Turkey, inspired the Founding Fathers of the United
States as they wrote the Constitution of the United States. Indeed,
there is a figure of Suleyman here in the House Chamber. We recognize
Suleyman as one of the great lawgivers of the world.
Again, the United States and Turkey have been close friends and
allies for more than half a century. Turkish Americans are leaders in
many walks of life, ranging from the arts, science, academia and
business, and have a proud heritage. Turkish Americans are good-will
ambassadors of the friendship between the United States and Turkey. In
celebrating their rich cultural heritage, Turkish Americans enrich
society in the United States and the United States' understanding of
that part of the world.
Mr. Speaker, Turkey is becoming a reliable energy hub for the Western
world, in a highly volatile region, completing the East-West Energy
Corridor. For decades, Turkey has stood as the bulwark of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, on the southeastern flank of the
alliance, and guarded a long common border with the Soviet Union.
Turkey has become an important partner of the United States in facing
new, major challenges, such as international terrorism, ethnic and
religious extremism and fundamentalism, energy and security and
diversity, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
international organized crime, including drug and human trafficking.
This has been especially true since the Cold War ended.
In July, 2006, the United States and Turkey signed a ``shared vision
document'' outlining a strategic vision for bilateral cooperation and
coordination on a wide range of international matters of common
concern. In 2006, and so far in 2007, Turkey has been the 30th largest
market for United States exports and the 44th largest source of
imports.
Mr. Speaker, Turkey continues to play an important role in
Afghanistan, having twice commanded the International Security
Assistance Force, and maintains a provincial reconstruction team in
Afghanistan which builds hospitals, schools and roads. It plays a
crucial role in helping supply services and equipment to United States
forces in Iraq.
Turkey, again, has had an extraordinarily proud history and has been
a very close collaborator with the United States in doing good things
all over the world, but especially in its part of the world. We as
Americans need to recognize the important role that Turkey has played,
again, from the early millennium, and the importance that it plays in
keeping peace in that part of the world.
I had the opportunity to go to Turkey in May of this year, along with
five other Members of Congress. There were three Democrats and three
Republicans. We visited the Armenian Patriarch and we visited the
Jewish community while we were there. We visited all the major players
in the Turkish government while we were there.
Turkey this year has gone through some challenges to its
constitution. It has worked out those challenges. It has held
elections. It has gone through some crises and handled them extremely
well. We are very proud of the way that all of those things have been
handled.
When we talked with people in Turkey, we heard over and over and over
again how devastating this resolution would be to our relationship with
the Turkish people. We heard from the Armenians in Turkey that this was
a mistake. They told us over and over again that this is something
people in the United States are pushing, that Armenians in the United
States are pushing. They said ``We do not want this done.
We are working out our differences here in Turkey, and working them out
very well. Please do not pass this resolution.''
My three Democratic colleagues who went on that trip are all opposed
to this resolution. The Republicans are opposed to it. This is a
mistake. The Speaker should not be pandering to people in her own
district and risking the friendship that we have with Turkey, and
indeed risking our military endeavors in the Middle East. But that is
what she's doing.
Again, I want to say that many people have called this the most
irresponsible act of this Congress. I think that that is appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, let me share with you some other people who have
expressed their interest and concern and opposition to this resolution.
Eight former Secretaries of State, Democrats and Republicans, sent a
letter to Speaker Pelosi. I want to quote from that letter, dated
September 25, 2007:
``We are writing to express concern that H. Res. 106 could soon be
put to a vote. Passage of the resolution would harm our foreign policy
objectives to promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It
would also strain our relations with Turkey and would endanger our
national security interests in the region, including the safety of our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
``We do not minimize or deny the enormous significance of the
horrible tragedy suffered by ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923. During
our tenures as Secretaries of State, we each supported Presidential
Statements recognizing the mass killings and forced exile of Armenians.
It has been longstanding U.S. policy to encourage reconciliation
between Turkey and Armenia and to urge the government of Turkey to
acknowledge the tragedy. We understand the administration continues to
urge the Turkish government to re-examine its history and to encourage
both Turkey and Armenia to work towards reconciliation, including
normalizing relations and opening the border.
``There are some hopeful signs already that both parties are engaging
each other. We believe that a public statement by the U.S. Congress at
this juncture is likely to undermine what has been painstakingly
achieved to date.''
They go on to say: ``We must also recognize the important
contributions Turkey is making to U.S. national security, including
security and stability in the Middle East and Europe. The United States
continues to rely on Turkey for its geostrategic importance. Turkey is
an indispensable partner to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan,
helping U.S. troops to combat terrorism and build security. By
providing the U.S. military with access to Turkish airspace, military
bases and the border crossing with Iraq, Turkey is a linchpin in the
trans-shipment of vital cargo and fuel resources to U.S. troops,
coalition partners and Iraqi civilians.
``Turkish troops serve shoulder to shoulder with distinction with
U.S. and other NATO allies in the Balkans. Turkey is also a transit hub
for non-OPEC oil and gas, and remains key to our efforts to help the
Euro-Atlantic community bolster its energy security by providing
alternative supply sources and routes around Russia and Iran.
``It is our view that passage of this resolution could quickly extend
beyond symbolic significance. The popularly-elected Turkish Grand
National Assembly might react strongly to a House resolution, as it did
to a French National Assembly resolution a year ago. The result could
endanger our national security interests in the region, including our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote
reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We strongly urge you to
prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.''
It is signed by eight former Secretaries of State, and I will submit
this for the record with their signatures.
There is another letter sent to the Speaker of the House by three
former Secretaries of Defense dated September 7, 2007.
``We write today to convey our deep concern regarding the damage that
passage of H. Res. 106 could do to relations between the United States
and Turkey, a long-time NATO ally and a country which plays a critical
role in supporting the U.S. national security interests in the Balkans,
greater Middle East, the Black Sea region and Afghanistan.
``The depth and breadth of our defense and security relationship with
Turkey are considerable, and, as former Secretaries of Defense, we
value Turkey's friendship and partnership. Turkey makes numerous and
substantial contributions to U.S. goals and interests abroad, including
its close relationship with Israel, its deployment of military forces
to the Balkans and its contribution to the NATO effort to defeat
terrorism and support democracy in Afghanistan.
``Just as public opinion plays a crucial role in our own country, the
reaction of the Turkish public to the passage of H. Res. 106 would be
considerable. Passage of H. Res. 106 would have a direct detrimental
effect on the operational capability, safety and well-being of our
armed forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, because the Turkish parliament
would likely respond to the Turkish public's call for action by
restricting or cutting off U.S. access to the Turkish air base at
Incirlik and closing the crossing into Iraq at the Habur Gate. The
Turkish parliament would also likely retract blanket flight clearances
for U.S. military overflights, which are vital to transporting supplies
and fuel to our troops.
``We also believe the increasingly open debate about this issue in
Turkey would surely be restricted by negative public reaction to U.S.
congressional action. We are also concerned that any potential steps
toward better relations between Turkey and Armenia will be set back by
any action in the U.S. Congress.
``In stating our opposition to H. Res. 106, we do not suggest that
anything other than the most terrible of tragedies took place as the
Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the early part of the last century. As
President Bush and other presidents before him have done, we recognize
the need to acknowledge and learn from the tragedy.
``We respect that this issue is of great concern to you, and hope
that you can consider other appropriate ways to highlight, commemorate
and honor the memory of the victims, without doing damage to our
contemporary relations with modern Turkey.''
Again, I will submit this letter for the Record.
Editorials have come out in most of the major newspapers, newspapers
that are not generally opposed to the Speaker. The Washington Post
editorial was titled ``Worse Than Irrelevant.''
``A congressional resolution about massacres in Turkey 90 years ago
endangers present day U.S. security. It is easy to dismiss a nonbinding
congressional resolution accusing Turkey of ``genocide'' against
Armenians during World War I as frivolous,'' and ``genocide'' is in
quotations. ``Though the subject is a serious one, more than 1 million
Armenians died, House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the
subject have petty and parochial interests.
``The problem is that any congressional action will be taken in
deadly earnest by Turkey's powerful nationalist politicians, and
therefore its government, which is already struggling to resist a tidal
wave of anti-Americanism in the country.''
I am going to submit this entire editorial also, because it refers
again to some of the letters that I have already read. But the
Washington Post has said this is worse than irrelevant, because it will
do harm. Again, what we should practice here is the same thing that
doctors practice: Above all else, do no harm.
There is an excerpt from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal,
October 2, 2007. ``History is messy enough without politicians getting
into the act. As a general rule, legislatures in far-off countries
ought to think carefully before passing judgment on another people's
history. When their sights turn in that direction, it is a fair bet
that points are to be scored with powerful domestic lobbies. Playing
with history often complicates the implementation of foreign policy
goals as well. Politicians are paid to think about the future, not the
past. Many would say, why are we doing this? Why should the Congress
not be dealing with the future, instead of the past?''
I question that too, and I am going to come back to that in a minute
in terms of what may be one of the real underlying reasons for all of these things coming out.
Some have said that Congress rarely holds the key to America's
foreign relations with a critical ally. But now with Turkey, the only
Muslim country in the world allied with the United States and NATO, the
future of Turkish-American relations are very much in the hands of the
Congress.
This is from a survey conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow, an
organization that did a survey in Turkey earlier this year. It was the
first nationwide public survey of Turkey on the issue and what the
survey found was that it would actually set back the cause it purports
to achieve, namely Turkey's recognition of its own past and
reconciliation with Armenia today.
I have a chart on this showing 78 percent of the Turkish people who
were surveyed opposed this resolution, any congressional resolution
dealing with the Armenian situation. Almost three-quarters of them felt
that passage of an Armenian regulation resolution would worsen their
opinion of the United States. Only 7 percent favored no action by the
government or favored such a resolution. And three-quarters of Turks,
though, would accept scholarship by independent historians on what
occurred between Turks and Armenians during 1915.
Also, Turks do not consider the U.S. Congress a neutral judge of this
issue. Instead, they see the resolution as driven by anti-Muslim
feelings and American domestic politics. And 73 percent of Turks think
a resolution will have the opposite effect and actually worsen
relations between Turkey and Armenia. Again, this was a poll done in
January and February of this year by Terror Free Tomorrow and the ARI
Foundation. These are groups that wanted to study this issue to gather
information to help people be informed of what the effect would be. The
survey was done all over the country of Turkey, and the views that were
held were held firmly regardless of age, income, education, or even
their present view of the United States.
And 84 percent of those who now have a very favorable opinion of the
United States responded that their opinion would deteriorate if the
resolution were to pass. And of course the resolution has passed in the
committee and the Speaker has said that she will bring it to the floor
for a vote which most people in Turkey believe would be a terrible,
terrible mistake.
Turkey again is a stable, moderate Muslim democracy. It is our most
strategic and valuable Muslim ally. This resolution would help the
cause of those extremists in Turkey who wish to reduce the nation's
ties with the United States. It would discredit those within Turkey who
continue to call for greater openness and plurality.
The Turkish people who answered the survey felt that it would
alienate the Armenians and the Turks who through fits and starts have
been slowly moving toward reconciliation of this important and divisive
historical question. It could scuttle dialogue to establish a joint
commission to examine the events of 1915.
Turkey is a country of considerable nationalism. The passage of this
resolution would likely produce a nationalistic backlash against the
United States. The whole issue of probing and making amends for the
wrongs of history would be completely lost in this onslaught of Turkish
nationalism. It would probably dramatically and perhaps permanently
damage U.S. relations with Turkey.
As the Turkish community of Turkey recently said in a statement:
``What happened to the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire during World War
I--death, destruction, displacement--was a terrible tragedy, but
eminent historians do not agree whether the term `genocide' is the
appropriate description of that tragedy.'' I certainly agree with that.
In another article by the Washington Post it said: ``It is true that
Turkey's military and political class has been slow to come to terms
with the history and virulent nationalism, but Turkish writers and
intellectuals are pushing for a change in attitude and formal and
informal talks between Turks and Armenians are making slow progress. A
resolution by Congress would probably torpedo rather than help such
efforts. Given that reality and the high risk to vital U.S. security
interests, the Armenian resolution cannot be called frivolous. In fact,
its passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.''
Now I want to go to a piece that has been written that I certainly
hope is not true. Jed Babbin, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense in
President George H.W. Bush's administration, has written in Human
Events magazine: ``According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates,
Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, is the transshipment point for
about 70 percent of all air cargo, including 33 percent of the fuel
going to supply U.S. forces in Iraq. Included are about 95 percent of
the new MRAP, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles, designed to
save the lives of American troops.
``Turkey's Erdogan government has indicated that if the House of
Representatives takes action on a nonbinding resolution being pushed by
Speaker Pelosi, Turkey might revoke our ability to use Incirlik as a
waypoint for Iraq supplies.''
And Mr. Boehner has said if the Turks cut off our ability to use
Incirlik, there is no question this could jeopardize our troops on the
ground in Iraq. And, frankly, if this is just the latest in the
Democrat string of back-door attempts to force a retreat against the
war against al Qaeda, it is certainly the most dangerous.''
Mr. Babbin comes to a chilling conclusion in his analysis of the
resolution and its impact on our Nation's relations with the nation of
Turkey. This is what gives me great pause. He writes: ``Speaker Pelosi
is apparently so intent on forcing an end to American involvement in
Iraq that she is willing to interfere in our tenuous friendship with
Turkey. When she does, it will be an historic event. The House of
Representatives will be responsible for alienating a key ally in time
of war and possibly interdicting supplies to U.S. troops.'' If his
prediction proves true, it will be a low point for the history of this
noble body.
I hope that what Mr. Babbin is saying is not true. I hope that this
is not an attempt by the Speaker to sabotage our efforts in Iraq and in
Afghanistan because it puts our troops in harm's way and we have been
hearing over and over again that this is not what she wants or that
others in the majority want. But it would have the effect of doing
that. We as Members of Congress should never take a position that would
in any way put our troops in harm's way.
I am urging the Speaker to rethink her statements that she will put
this resolution, H. Res. 106, on the floor for a vote. It is a
nonbinding resolution. It will go nowhere else. People outside here
don't understand how these resolutions work, but it would not go to the
Senate to be passed. It would not go to the President to be vetoed as I
feel certain the President would veto if it went there. It is a
resolution only from the House of Representatives. This is a body that
is capable of doing so much good, but we also have the capability of
doing harm. We should practice again what physicians take an oath to
do: Above all, do no harm.
I urge the Speaker: rethink your commitment to put H. Res. 106 on the
floor for a vote. Realize the significant responsibility that has been
given to you not just as a Member of the House of Representatives but
as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, an extraordinarily
great honor, the first woman in this country to be named Speaker of the
House.
What message are we sending to our troops if we pass such a
resolution or even consider such a resolution that puts our troops in
harm's way, damages our relationship with a country that has been such
a wonderful ally to us and does damage to our relationship for a long,
long time to a government that has been working very hard to do the
right things, to promote democracy in the Middle East, to shore up
other countries that are working to promote democracy. What messages
are those going to send to other people.
I urge the Speaker to rethink her commitment to put this resolution
on the floor. I urge the Speaker to get above petty and parochial
interests, to think about the tremendous responsibility she bears as
the Speaker of the House.
We are not often involved in foreign relations on the scale that we
are being asked to be involved in the House at this time. It is an awesome
responsibility. We all should remember that we have taken an oath to
defend the Constitution and to defend this country. Bringing such a
resolution to the floor will do damage to our country, to our
relationship with a valued ally, and I believe ultimately will do harm
to our efforts to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.
I urge the Speaker to rise above again petty parochialism, come to
the realization that this is an extremely serious matter that needs to
be dealt with in a very different way than it has been dealt with thus
far, and reject petty parochialism in favor of looking to the larger
issue, looking to the future, not to the past, and helping the
Armenians and the Turks come to grips with this difference of opinion
that they have, resolve it within their own country, keep the United
States looking for those things that are important to the United
States, not getting involved with the internal affairs of other
countries and promoting peace and stability in the Middle East.
Let us let the 110th Congress not be thought of as passing the most
irresponsible resolution that could be passed in this session of
Congress. Let us focus on positive things, things that will move this
country forward and not things that will do harm to this country, to
other countries and, most of all, not to our troops serving overseas,
protecting us so we can be here to practice the free speech that they
make possible for us.
I will insert the material I previously referred to in the Record at
this point.
TCA Issue Paper 25
October 1, 2007, Former Secretaries of State and Defense Object to H.
Res. 106
The following letters have been sent to the Honorable Nancy
Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, by former
U.S. Secretaries of State and former U.S. Secretaries of
Defense voicing their objection to House Resolution 106,
which asks for U.S. recognition of Armenian allegations of
genocide.
Letter by Secretaries of State to Speaker Pelosi
September 25, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: We are writing to express concern that
H. Res. 106 could soon be put to a vote. Passage of the
resolution would harm our foreign policy objectives to
promote reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia. It would
also strain our relations with Turkey, and would endanger our
national security interests in the region, including the
safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We do not minimize or deny the enormous significance of the
horrible tragedy suffered by ethnic Armenians from 1915 to
1923. During our tenures as Secretaries of State, we each
supported Presidential statements recognizing the mass
killings and forced exile of Armenians. It has been
longstanding U.S. policy to encourage reconciliation between
Turkey and Armenia and to urge the government of Turkey to
acknowledge the tragedy. We understand the Administration
continues to urge the Turkish government to reexamine its
history and to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to work
towards reconciliation, including normalizing relations and
opening the border. There are some hopeful signs already that
both parties are engaging each other. We believe that a
public statement by the U.S. Congress at this juncture is
likely to undermine what has been painstakingly achieved to
date.
We must also recognize the important contributions Turkey
is making to U.S. national security, including security and
stability in the Middle East and Europe. The United States
continues to rely on Turkey for its geo-strategic importance.
Turkey is an indispensable partner to our efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, helping U.S. troops to combat terrorism and
build security. By providing the U.S. military with access to
Turkish airspace, military bases, and the border crossing
with Iraq, Turkey is a linchpin in the transshipment of vital
cargo and fuel resources to U.S. troops, coalition partners,
and Iraqi civilians. Turkish troops serve shoulder-to-
shoulder with distinction with U.S. and other NATO allies
in the Balkans. Turkey is also a transit hub for non-OPEC
oil and gas and remains key to our efforts to help the
Euro-Atlantic community bolster its energy security by
providing alternative supply sources and routes around
Russia and Iran.
It is our view that passage of this resolution could
quickly extend beyond symbolic significance. The popularly
elected Turkish Grand National Assembly might react strongly
to a House resolution, as it did to a French National
Assembly resolution a year ago. The result could endanger our
national security interests in the region, including our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote
reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey. We strongly urge
you to prevent the resolution from reaching the House floor.
Sincerely,
Alexander M. Haig, Jr., George P. Shultz, Lawrence S.
Eagleburger, Madeleine K. Albright, Henry A. Kissinger,
James A. Baker III, Warren Christopher, Colin L.
Powell.
____
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2007]
Worse Than Irrelevant: A congressional Resolution About Massacres in
Turkey 90 Years Ago Endangers Present-Day U.S. Security.
It's easy to dismiss a nonbinding congressional resolution
accusing Turkey of ``genocide'' against Armenians during
World War I as frivolous. Though the subject is a serious
one--more than 1 million Armenians may have died at the hands
of the Young Turk regime between 1915 and the early 1920s--
House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the subject have
petty and parochial interests. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-
Calif.), the chief sponsor, says he has more than 70,000
ethnic Armenians in his Los Angeles district. Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has promised to bring the measure to a
vote on the House floor, has important Armenian American
campaign contributors. How many House members can be expected
to carefully weigh Mr. Schiff's one-sided ``findings'' about
long-ago events in Anatolia?
The problem is that any congressional action will be taken
in deadly earnest by Turkey's powerful nationalist
politicians and therefore by its government, which is already
struggling to resist a tidal wave of anti-Americanism in the
country. Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
called President Bush on Friday to warn against the
resolution. Turkish politicians are predicting that responses
to passage by the House could include denial of U.S. access
to Turkey's Incirlik air base, a key staging point for
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Turkish
parliament could also throw off longstanding U.S. constraints
and mandate an invasion of northern Iraq to attack Kurdish
separatists there, something that could destabilize the only
region of Iraq that is currently peaceful.
No wonder eight former secretaries of state, including
Henry A. Kissinger, James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz and
Madeleine K. Albright, have urged Ms. Pelosi to drop the
resolution, saying it ``could endanger our national security
interests in the region, including our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and damage efforts to promote reconciliation
between Armenia and Turkey.'' Yet the measure is proceeding:
It is due to be voted on today by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Supporters say congressional action is justified by the
refusal of the Turkish government to accept the truth of the
crimes against Armenians, and its criminalization of
statements describing those events as genocide. It's true
that Turkey's military and political class has been
inexcusably slow to come to terms with that history, and
virulent nationalism--not Islamism--may be the country's most
dangerous political force. But Turkish writers and
intellectuals are pushing for a change in attitude, and
formal and informal talks between Turks and Armenians are
making slow progress. A resolution by Congress would probably
torpedo rather than help such efforts. Given that reality,
and the high risk to vital U.S. security interests, the
Armenian genocide resolution cannot be called frivolous. In
fact, its passage would be dangerous and grossly
irresponsible.
Letter by Secretaries of Defense to Speaker Pelosi
September 7, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: We write today to convey our deep
concern regarding the damage that passage of H. Res. 106
could do to relations between the United States and Turkey, a
long-time NATO ally and a country which plays a critical role
in supporting U.S. national security interests in the
Balkans, greater Middle East, the Black Sea region and
Afghanistan. The depth and breadth of our defense and
security relationship with Turkey are considerable, and, as
former Secretaries of Defense, we value Turkey's friendship
and partnership.
Turkey makes numerous and substantial contributions to U.S.
goals and interests abroad, including its close relationship
with Israel, its deployment of military forces to the Balkans
and its contribution to the NATO effort to defeat terrorism
and support democracy in Afghanistan.
Just as public opinion plays a crucial role in our own
country, the reaction of the Turkish public to the passage of
H. Res. 106 would be considerable. Passage of H. Res. 106
would have a direct, detrimental effect on the operational
capabilities, safety and well being of our armed forces in
Iraq and in Afghanistan because the Turkish parliament would
likely respond to the Turkish public's call for action by
restricting or cutting off U.S. access to the Turkish air
base at Incirlik and closing the crossing into Iraq at the
Habur Gate. The Turkish parliament would also likely retract
blanket flight clearances for U.S. military overflights,
which are vital to transporting supplies and fuel to our
troops. We also believe the increasingly open debate about
this issue In
[[Page H11546]]
Turkey would surely be restricted by a negative public
reaction to U.S. Congressional action. We are also concerned
that any potential steps toward better relations between
Turkey and Armenia will be set back by any action in the U.S.
Congress.
In stating our opposition to H. Res. 106, we do not suggest
that anything other than the most terrible of tragedies took
place as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in the early part
of the last century. As President Bush and other Presidents
before him have done, we recognize the need to acknowledge
and learn from the tragedy. We respect that this issue is of
great concern to you, and hope that you can consider other
appropriate ways to highlight, commemorate and honor the
memory of the victims without doing damage to our
contemporary relations with modern Turkey.
Sincerely,
Frank Carlucci.
William Cohen.
William Perry.
____________________