Tweet
GENOCIDE RESOLUTION GOING DOWN DOWN DOWN
The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Netherlands
Oct 18 2007
The Christian Science Monitor summarized what caused the downfall
of the infamous Armenian genocide resolution (hr 106). The general
reason according to the CSM: realpolitik triumphs morals or in the
words of Thomas Henriksen, a foreign-policy scholar at the Hoover
Institution in Stanford, California: "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. We want to be the
city on the hill, but then some overriding interests come up and we
say, 'Oh, that's different.' "
Of course this scholar seems to forget that the moral high ground and
being a city on a hill doesn't just mean that you condemn others but
that you take responsibility for your own mistakes and condemn your
own sins before you condemn (those of) others. America has a rich
history, but it made some major mistakes and committed quite some
crimes against humanity itself. If Pelosi wants to give America its
moral authority back, perhaps she should focus a bit on the issue of
slavery and on now Native Americans were treated. Having said that,
one could also argue that there's no use in talking about all the
crimes different countries committed so long ago, and I would tend
to agree. We have to look at the world now, not at how it was 100
or 150 or 200 years ago. Otherwise, we might just as well all start
apologizing to each other for everything we ever did, for no people
and no country is without sin.
What's interesting in the article at the CSM is that they too don't
mention the opinions of distinguished scholars like Bernard Lewis,
Andrew Mango and Norman Stone. The pro-genocide camp seems to have
convinced most journalists that there is little to no question about
whether or not what happened constitutes genocide and that the only
ones asking questions about it are Turks or those supported in one
way or another by the Turkish government. In fact, of course, there
are quite some experts who argue that what happened was terrible, but
that it doesn't constitute genocide because the Ottoman government
appears to have opposed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of
Armenian Christians. Bernard Lewis, I'll repeat it again, said that
the Ottoman government tried to prevent the Armenians from being killed
and Stone rightfully pointed out that (with the emphasis Meltem used)
"There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the
deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men
for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None
of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it."
In other words, there's more to it - or there should be more to it -
than realpolitik. Having said that, you won't hear Turks complain
when the US Congress decided not to vote on the resolution out of
realpolitik considerations of course. And the all too real political
situation in the world right now doesn't give the US room to condemn
Turkey for something as controversial as this. Now is not the time
to insult Turkey and to turn Turkey into an enemy. As the Christian
Science Monitor recaps, that's also how most Congressmen seem to feel
by now and that's why Nancy Pelosi has indicated that she won't even
let the full House vote on the resolution.
For more (and for an opposing view generally) I'd say head on
over to The Moderate Voice. Joe points out that there's something
very troubling going on in Turkey right now: some Islamists and
ultranationalists seem to partially blame Jews for the resolution.
This is not just an overreaction, it's also a potentially dangerous
development for Jews living in Turkey. The Turkish government should
speak out against these sentiments immediately and condemn them for
what they are: anti-Semites.
Michael A. Moodian, meanwhile, accuses Bush of insulting
Armenian-Americans by opposing the resolution. Mr. Moodian points
out in his column that the American Heritage Dictionary defines
genocide as follows: "the systematic and planned extermination of an
entire national, racial, political or ethnic group," which ironically
weakens his case severely since research has shown many distinguished
scholars that the massacres weren't planned by the Ottoman government
and since many Armenians were allowed to continue to live in Turkey -
only the Armenians living in a part of Anatolia were deported.
Thus all of this mean that there was per definition no genocide? No,
it could be that additional research in the Ottoman archives shows
that the Ottoman government did order the killings of the Armenian
deportees. What it does indicate is that the judgment should be left
to historians, who can take all the time they need to investigate
this matter, and not to politicians whose main concern is reelection.
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/ genocide-resolution-going-down-down-down/
--Bound ary_(ID_lQg10R9xKfK1hQ4tQ4l63A)--
The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Netherlands
Oct 18 2007
The Christian Science Monitor summarized what caused the downfall
of the infamous Armenian genocide resolution (hr 106). The general
reason according to the CSM: realpolitik triumphs morals or in the
words of Thomas Henriksen, a foreign-policy scholar at the Hoover
Institution in Stanford, California: "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. We want to be the
city on the hill, but then some overriding interests come up and we
say, 'Oh, that's different.' "
Of course this scholar seems to forget that the moral high ground and
being a city on a hill doesn't just mean that you condemn others but
that you take responsibility for your own mistakes and condemn your
own sins before you condemn (those of) others. America has a rich
history, but it made some major mistakes and committed quite some
crimes against humanity itself. If Pelosi wants to give America its
moral authority back, perhaps she should focus a bit on the issue of
slavery and on now Native Americans were treated. Having said that,
one could also argue that there's no use in talking about all the
crimes different countries committed so long ago, and I would tend
to agree. We have to look at the world now, not at how it was 100
or 150 or 200 years ago. Otherwise, we might just as well all start
apologizing to each other for everything we ever did, for no people
and no country is without sin.
What's interesting in the article at the CSM is that they too don't
mention the opinions of distinguished scholars like Bernard Lewis,
Andrew Mango and Norman Stone. The pro-genocide camp seems to have
convinced most journalists that there is little to no question about
whether or not what happened constitutes genocide and that the only
ones asking questions about it are Turks or those supported in one
way or another by the Turkish government. In fact, of course, there
are quite some experts who argue that what happened was terrible, but
that it doesn't constitute genocide because the Ottoman government
appears to have opposed the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of
Armenian Christians. Bernard Lewis, I'll repeat it again, said that
the Ottoman government tried to prevent the Armenians from being killed
and Stone rightfully pointed out that (with the emphasis Meltem used)
"There were indeed well-documented and horrible massacres of the
deportee columns, and the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men
for these crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. None
of this squares with genocide, as we classically understand it."
In other words, there's more to it - or there should be more to it -
than realpolitik. Having said that, you won't hear Turks complain
when the US Congress decided not to vote on the resolution out of
realpolitik considerations of course. And the all too real political
situation in the world right now doesn't give the US room to condemn
Turkey for something as controversial as this. Now is not the time
to insult Turkey and to turn Turkey into an enemy. As the Christian
Science Monitor recaps, that's also how most Congressmen seem to feel
by now and that's why Nancy Pelosi has indicated that she won't even
let the full House vote on the resolution.
For more (and for an opposing view generally) I'd say head on
over to The Moderate Voice. Joe points out that there's something
very troubling going on in Turkey right now: some Islamists and
ultranationalists seem to partially blame Jews for the resolution.
This is not just an overreaction, it's also a potentially dangerous
development for Jews living in Turkey. The Turkish government should
speak out against these sentiments immediately and condemn them for
what they are: anti-Semites.
Michael A. Moodian, meanwhile, accuses Bush of insulting
Armenian-Americans by opposing the resolution. Mr. Moodian points
out in his column that the American Heritage Dictionary defines
genocide as follows: "the systematic and planned extermination of an
entire national, racial, political or ethnic group," which ironically
weakens his case severely since research has shown many distinguished
scholars that the massacres weren't planned by the Ottoman government
and since many Armenians were allowed to continue to live in Turkey -
only the Armenians living in a part of Anatolia were deported.
Thus all of this mean that there was per definition no genocide? No,
it could be that additional research in the Ottoman archives shows
that the Ottoman government did order the killings of the Armenian
deportees. What it does indicate is that the judgment should be left
to historians, who can take all the time they need to investigate
this matter, and not to politicians whose main concern is reelection.
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/ genocide-resolution-going-down-down-down/
--Bound ary_(ID_lQg10R9xKfK1hQ4tQ4l63A)--