Tweet
October 18, 2007 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1018/p01s04-usfp.h tml
How 'genocide' vote lost steam
A House vote to condemn mass killings of Armenians as 'genocide' has
stumbled on pragmatic concerns.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Washington
The sudden misgivings about a popular House resolution condemning as
"genocide" the large-scale killings of Armenians more than nine
decades ago illustrate a recurring tug of war in US foreign policy:
when to take the moral high ground and when to heed the pragmatic
realities of national interests.
The measure, which would put the House of Representatives on record as
characterizing as genocide the deaths of more than 1 million Armenians
at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, appeared on track to passage by
the full House after the Foreign Affairs Committee approved it last
week. But pressure from the White House - worried about the impact of
the nonbinding measure on relations with Turkey, a crucial logistical
partner in the war in Iraq - is now causing Republicans and Democrats
who had supported the measure to reconsider.
"We regularly see the impulse of Wilsonian idealism, the emphasis on
democracy and human rights, counterbalanced by the pragmatic demands
of realpolitik. It's one of the constant dynamics of American foreign
policy," says Thomas Henriksen, a foreign-policy scholar at the Hoover
Institution in Stanford, Calif. "We want to be the city on the hill,
but then some overriding interests come up and we say, 'Oh, that's
different.' "
In this case, the overriding interest appears to be keeping on good
terms with Turkey, a NATO ally that opposed the war in Iraq but that
allows the United States to use bases there as part of crucial supply
lines to US troops and personnel in Iraq.
Prospects for a full House statement on Armenian genocide have been
feeding nationalist flames in Turkey. The government of Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has already been battling heavy anti-American
public opinion as it acts to address the problem of recurring attacks
by Kurdish rebels from across the border in Kurdish Iraq.
For many in Turkey, including in the government, the US has not done
enough in next-door Iraq and with its Kurdish allies to address the
activities of the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK
- a group the US lists as a terrorist organization.
On Wednesday, the government won a vote in the Turkish parliament
authorizing the military to undertake cross-border incursions into
Iraq where the PKK is based. The destabilizing potential of such
military operations is as worrying to the Bush administration as
Turkish threats to end use of its air bases by the US.
US cautions Turkey
President Bush said at a press conference Wednesday that the US is
making it clear to the Turkish government that sending large numbers
of troops into northern Iraq would not be productive.
All these factors are beginning to weigh on House members, some of
whom last week predicted easy passage of the genocide resolution. On
Wednesday, a group of prominent Democrats from subcommittees on NATO
and security in Europe urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to bring the
Armenian resolution to a full House vote. Majority leader Steny Hoyer
(D) of Maryland said Tuesday he still thought the resolution would be
brought to a vote, but he acknowledged that "a number of people
... are revisiting their own positions." He said that would prompt a
reevaluation of support for the measure and of timing of a vote.
"The fact is, if you get an increasing number of Democrats joining
Republicans who already oppose this measure, it's not going to pass,"
says Lawrence Korb, a foreign-policy specialist at the Center for
American Progress, a Democratic-leaning think tank in Washington.
The intense politicking on the issue further exemplifies how national
interests tend to supersede all other concerns in international
relations, experts say. "The United States, like any other great
power, seriously considers moral issues only to the extent that those
moral issues coincide with substantive interests," says Andrew
Bacevich, who teaches foreign policy at Boston University's Center for
International Relations.
Mr. Bush referred to a "genocidal campaign" against Armenians in 2000
before becoming president but has since avoided the G-word in the
Armenian context. Yet he has been willing to call killings in the
Sudanese province of Darfur "genocide."
Some say that only proves the point that taking such a stance is
possible when less is at stake. "Although there's been much
speechifying about the Darfur situation, for instance, the US has
taken no effective action to respond to the suffering of the people
there simply because the US has no serious interests in Darfur. It's
not uplifting or inspiring," Mr. Bacevich adds, "but it's the way
international politics works."
Other examples: Burma, Dalai Lama
Other recent examples of taking the moral high ground when there
appears to be little practical risk include Burma, as well as official
reception of the Dalai Lama on his visit this week to Washington,
experts say. "The recent case of Myanmar or Burma demonstrates that
it's easiest to take the moral high ground when there are no
countervailing interests to take into consideration," says
Mr. Henriksen. "We don't have strong ties or significant trade with
that country, so we're not risking a lot there."
The White House did make an effort to assuage China's concerns about
the Dalai Lama's visit by emphasizing his place as a religious and not
a political leader, and by keeping his Tuesday visit to the White
House to private quarters and not the Oval Office. Bush said his
admiration of the Dalai Lama stems from the leader's support for
religious freedom. "I do not think it's going to seriously damage
relations" with China, he added.
Although national interests may reign supreme in determining conduct
on such issues, a contributing factor is domestic politics, including
the influence of one-issue lobbying groups. In matters of foreign
policy, the power of ethnic organizations in a nation of immigrants
also enters the picture, experts say. "The truth is that this action
by Congress, on a historical event they have no competence to render
judgment on, has nothing to do with foreign policy and everything to
do with domestic politics," says Bacevich.
The measure has been sought by representatives from districts in
California, New Jersey, and Michigan, with large concentrations of
Armenian-Americans. That aspect of the issue points up what Henriksen
calls "ethnic politics." "It true with the Cuba issue, where a
pragmatic approach might say we should open up their system with more
trade and exchanges," he says. "But the Cuban-Americans have a tight
check on that."
Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1018/p01s04-usfp.h tml
How 'genocide' vote lost steam
A House vote to condemn mass killings of Armenians as 'genocide' has
stumbled on pragmatic concerns.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Washington
The sudden misgivings about a popular House resolution condemning as
"genocide" the large-scale killings of Armenians more than nine
decades ago illustrate a recurring tug of war in US foreign policy:
when to take the moral high ground and when to heed the pragmatic
realities of national interests.
The measure, which would put the House of Representatives on record as
characterizing as genocide the deaths of more than 1 million Armenians
at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, appeared on track to passage by
the full House after the Foreign Affairs Committee approved it last
week. But pressure from the White House - worried about the impact of
the nonbinding measure on relations with Turkey, a crucial logistical
partner in the war in Iraq - is now causing Republicans and Democrats
who had supported the measure to reconsider.
"We regularly see the impulse of Wilsonian idealism, the emphasis on
democracy and human rights, counterbalanced by the pragmatic demands
of realpolitik. It's one of the constant dynamics of American foreign
policy," says Thomas Henriksen, a foreign-policy scholar at the Hoover
Institution in Stanford, Calif. "We want to be the city on the hill,
but then some overriding interests come up and we say, 'Oh, that's
different.' "
In this case, the overriding interest appears to be keeping on good
terms with Turkey, a NATO ally that opposed the war in Iraq but that
allows the United States to use bases there as part of crucial supply
lines to US troops and personnel in Iraq.
Prospects for a full House statement on Armenian genocide have been
feeding nationalist flames in Turkey. The government of Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has already been battling heavy anti-American
public opinion as it acts to address the problem of recurring attacks
by Kurdish rebels from across the border in Kurdish Iraq.
For many in Turkey, including in the government, the US has not done
enough in next-door Iraq and with its Kurdish allies to address the
activities of the separatist Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK
- a group the US lists as a terrorist organization.
On Wednesday, the government won a vote in the Turkish parliament
authorizing the military to undertake cross-border incursions into
Iraq where the PKK is based. The destabilizing potential of such
military operations is as worrying to the Bush administration as
Turkish threats to end use of its air bases by the US.
US cautions Turkey
President Bush said at a press conference Wednesday that the US is
making it clear to the Turkish government that sending large numbers
of troops into northern Iraq would not be productive.
All these factors are beginning to weigh on House members, some of
whom last week predicted easy passage of the genocide resolution. On
Wednesday, a group of prominent Democrats from subcommittees on NATO
and security in Europe urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to bring the
Armenian resolution to a full House vote. Majority leader Steny Hoyer
(D) of Maryland said Tuesday he still thought the resolution would be
brought to a vote, but he acknowledged that "a number of people
... are revisiting their own positions." He said that would prompt a
reevaluation of support for the measure and of timing of a vote.
"The fact is, if you get an increasing number of Democrats joining
Republicans who already oppose this measure, it's not going to pass,"
says Lawrence Korb, a foreign-policy specialist at the Center for
American Progress, a Democratic-leaning think tank in Washington.
The intense politicking on the issue further exemplifies how national
interests tend to supersede all other concerns in international
relations, experts say. "The United States, like any other great
power, seriously considers moral issues only to the extent that those
moral issues coincide with substantive interests," says Andrew
Bacevich, who teaches foreign policy at Boston University's Center for
International Relations.
Mr. Bush referred to a "genocidal campaign" against Armenians in 2000
before becoming president but has since avoided the G-word in the
Armenian context. Yet he has been willing to call killings in the
Sudanese province of Darfur "genocide."
Some say that only proves the point that taking such a stance is
possible when less is at stake. "Although there's been much
speechifying about the Darfur situation, for instance, the US has
taken no effective action to respond to the suffering of the people
there simply because the US has no serious interests in Darfur. It's
not uplifting or inspiring," Mr. Bacevich adds, "but it's the way
international politics works."
Other examples: Burma, Dalai Lama
Other recent examples of taking the moral high ground when there
appears to be little practical risk include Burma, as well as official
reception of the Dalai Lama on his visit this week to Washington,
experts say. "The recent case of Myanmar or Burma demonstrates that
it's easiest to take the moral high ground when there are no
countervailing interests to take into consideration," says
Mr. Henriksen. "We don't have strong ties or significant trade with
that country, so we're not risking a lot there."
The White House did make an effort to assuage China's concerns about
the Dalai Lama's visit by emphasizing his place as a religious and not
a political leader, and by keeping his Tuesday visit to the White
House to private quarters and not the Oval Office. Bush said his
admiration of the Dalai Lama stems from the leader's support for
religious freedom. "I do not think it's going to seriously damage
relations" with China, he added.
Although national interests may reign supreme in determining conduct
on such issues, a contributing factor is domestic politics, including
the influence of one-issue lobbying groups. In matters of foreign
policy, the power of ethnic organizations in a nation of immigrants
also enters the picture, experts say. "The truth is that this action
by Congress, on a historical event they have no competence to render
judgment on, has nothing to do with foreign policy and everything to
do with domestic politics," says Bacevich.
The measure has been sought by representatives from districts in
California, New Jersey, and Michigan, with large concentrations of
Armenian-Americans. That aspect of the issue points up what Henriksen
calls "ethnic politics." "It true with the Cuba issue, where a
pragmatic approach might say we should open up their system with more
trade and exchanges," he says. "But the Cuban-Americans have a tight
check on that."
Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.